Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Dec 1926

Vol. 17 No. 10

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1925—FINAL STAGES.

The Minister is agreeable that this Bill should be recommitted for the purpose of discussing amendments to Section 11 and the second schedule. I therefore move that the Bill be recommitted.

Ordered—"That the Bill be recommitted for the consideration of amendments."

The Dáil went into Committee.

I move the amendment to my name—

"In page 6 to delete lines 49 to 68 inclusive, and in page 7 to delete lines 1 to 3 inclusive."

This amendment desires to delete the greater part of sub-section (6) of Section 11. It is unfortunate, I think, that special attention was not drawn, either by the Minister or any Deputy, to the effect and the purpose of this provision. It will be remembered that in the principal Act of 1925 certain provision was made regarding exemptions from the full rating of buildings erected over certain years. It will also be remembered that the provision in question was inserted in the Seanad on the Report Stage in the Seanad after the Bill had passed all its stages in the Dáil. When the Bill, with this new provision, came down from the Seanad to the Dáil the exemption provision, as it finally was inserted in the Bill, was agreed to by a small majority. Now there has been inserted into this Bill a provision for further exemption of new buildings from rates: an extension of the period of exemption for all buildings that come under the provisions of the principal Act, and an extension of the period during which new buildings may be built for the purpose of obtaining an exemption. Under the principal Act, which is now sought to be amended, certain buildings were to be exempted compulsorily by the local authorities from two-thirds of the rates for a certain period. Under the 1916 Dublin Reconstruction Act there was an extension of the period of exemption from rates for four years. Under the later Act, the Dublin Reconstruction Act of 1924, there was an extension of three years, but then it provided that any other buildings anywhere, except houses built under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts and under the recent Housing Acts, were to be exempted for the years from 1926 to 1933. A new building, or a building which had undergone considerable reconstruction, was a building which had been reconstructed or built in the years 1920 to 1927. The proposal in the Bill is to do two things: to extend the period of building so that new buildings under the Bill would be buildings erected up to 1930, extending the period by three years. The second provision is that the years of exemption shall be for seven years after the completion of the building. Under that provision a new building is a building which is not a workman's house or a house built under the provisions of recent Housing Acts, State assisted, and, of course, occupied by the less fortunate section of the community. All other buildings than those are to be exempted from two-thirds of their rates for a period which may include the years 1930 to 1937.

Now it would have been better, perhaps, had we been able to have examples of the effect upon rates generally on all the counties and towns in the country of the principal Acts. We might then have been able to form some estimate of the cost to the remainder of the ratepayers of this proposed amendment. The Minister replied to part of the question I put to him a few minutes ago. He told us that for the City of Dublin there had been 64 ratings, valued at £100 or over, which had been exempted, or, as one may say, in respect of which the rates had been reduced by two-thirds, and that the valuation of these 64 premises was £31,000. I cannot say exactly what the rates for the City of Dublin are at the present time. I take it that, at a rough estimate, they are 16/- in the £. I am not quick enough to make a mental calculation as to the cost of these exemption in respect of this £31,000 worth of valuations, but it would probably be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £15,000 or £16,000 a year. The period of that gift of other people's money that we are making is to be extended, and we have had no suggestion of justification from the Minister for such an extension of these free gifts. Let it be borne in mind by the House that the same principle that was introduced into the original Bill of retrospective action is introduced again in this Bill. You have buildings that have been erected any time within the last few years on the understanding that their rates would be reduced for a certain period. That was the Act, and whether we like it or not it was accepted, but now it is proposed that the proprietors of those buildings should have a further gift by exemption from two-thirds of their rates for another period which may vary in time and may even extend to three or four years beyond what was originally proposed.

Now it is quite difficult for me to understand why this should be provided for. The case was made in the original Bill that it was necessary to make some exemption of this kind to encourage building, but we are proposing to make this present at the expense of the remainder of the ratepayers to buildings which have already been erected. Is that going to encourage new buildings? I cannot understand how that argument could be made and applied even now or in the original Act. This sum of £15,000 or £16,000 which has been presented to the proprietors of these sixty-four ratings is, of course, borne by the remainder of the ratepayers: artisans, clerks, civil servants and others who are engaged in endeavouring to pay off the charges upon highly-priced and highly-rated houses. It is they who are going to bear the cost of this exemption, and we are now asked to extend this gift to the wealthier portion of the population, because that is what it means. This does not apply only to the City of Dublin. We have not the figures, and one cannot say how it applies to the County Dublin and the townships, but we know, as a matter of fact, that there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction at the cost entailed upon the rates, generally, by this exemption that was included in the original Act. I speak now for the townships and the County of Dublin as well as for the city, and I know that similar complaints were made in respect to Cork and other towns, and also, I have no doubt, in respect to county areas throughout the country.

It certainly is not desirable, unless there are some very strong reasons adduced which I cannot conceive, that we should allow this further exemption to be made. We are repeating and extending the procedure of the last Act when we said to the ratepayers of Cork, Waterford, Limerick, Dublin, Dun Laoghaire, and the rest of the country: "We are imposing certain charges upon you out of general legislation for the general good. We know you are grumbling at the imposition, but it is for the general good, and, therefore, you must bear it, but we are going to add to that another obligatory charge: we are going to make it impossible for you to collect rates from the proprietors of those new buildings, at least to the extent of two-thirds of what they would otherwise be required to pay." We are imposing upon the local authorities this obligation, that they are to make a free gift to some of their ratepayers—to a select few of their ratepayers. Now I think it is unjustifiable that we should take that action, not for the general good, not for a general service which all citizens are going to benefit by, but solely and wholly for the benefit of these few people who have deemed it to be their interest, convenience or advantage to put up new premises. It is entirely unnecessary, because these new premises in many cases have already been put up; they are already built, and why we should be asked to compel a local authority to remit rates to the proprietors of these buildings I cannot understand. I wait with interest to hear what justification the Minister can put forward for inserting this provision in the Bill. I beg to move the amendment.

I do not wish to examine minutely the advantages that are gained by this remission of rates or the advantages which are expected to be gained in the building of extra houses, with subsequent benefit to the community. I do want to say that there has been a great deal of confusion entailed by this particular section which has been included in the Act in regard to the remission of rates. I can advert to cases that have come under my own observation in urban areas where the county authority is the assessor of taxes and assesses taxes not alone upon the rural but also upon the urban portions of the county; where the urban authority refuses to sanction any remission of rates on houses built under the recent Acts, where those who built on the assumption that they were going to get these advantages have refused to pay the full tax, where measures have been taken to press for the collection of the full tax and where the full tax had to be paid.

It would appear that while provision was made that a local authority may, or where the Minister so directs shall make this rebate of taxation, it was to the major authority that rule should apply and not to the minor authority. The major authority is the authority that assesses taxation, and not the minor authority, which has only the duty of collecting the taxation and handing it in full to the county authority. The local authorities have a perfect right to say that they could not collect it. After people have had their property assessed on a full valuation, and that money is payable to the County Council, there are cases where these people exempt themselves. I do not know what kind of contention exists, or whether the Minister has sufficient authority——

Is this in order?

Will the Minister make a point of order?

I do not think the Deputy is speaking to the amendment. I think he is dealing with the original Act instead of with the present Bill.

The Deputy is talking about confusion somewhere. I have to confess to a certain amount of confusion myself.

Confusion worse confounded.

Does the Deputy maintain he is speaking to the amendment?

The Deputy is dealing with confusion not from his own point of view, but from the point of view of the people whom we represent here and for whom this legislation was intended.

I am not accusing the Deputy of being confused; I am merely confessing to a certain amount of confusion on my own part.

The confusion is due to the Minister's Bill.

Is the Deputy speaking to the amendment, to the section, or to the Bill?

I am speaking to the amendment. I do not agree with Deputy Johnson's line of argument. He suggests that it would be advisable to cut away these advantages. I do not agree with him that it would be advisable to cut these advantages away until we have some assurances, based on the experience gained in relation to the Acts already in operation, as to how far they have been conducive in bringing about an improvement in the supply of badly needed accommodation.

Is the Deputy aware that this provision does not deal with any houses built under the recent Housing Acts?

What the benefits of this measure will be in future must be judged from our experience of past legislation of a similar nature. We have no other means of knowing whether the present measure is or is not a wise one except we fall back upon the experience gained under the Acts already in operation. Until I have information of that sort before me, I would not be prepared to prohibit the inclusion in the present measure of even the extended exemption that is proposed. It should be encouraged if it tends towards the provision of houses that are badly wanted.

The exemption of houses is a very big inducement to those who go in for house building. Houses will not be built by private enterprise or speculators unless there are some advantages offering. I certainly would not support Deputy Johnson's proposal that these advantages be taken out of the Bill. I have endeavoured to show the difficulties that have arisen in relation to the legislation already in operation. Some of the provisions, in their method of administration, are ridiculous; they are things that the Minister should grapple with.

I think Deputy Johnson was a little bit off the track in speaking to his amendment. There was a good deal of controversy in the Dáil when the provisions of the principal Act first came before it. I think the opposition on that occasion was more to the retrospective clauses contained in the measure. The Act has served a useful purpose. It has been, I believe, a stimulus to building, and in that way it has given employment. I have a good deal of sympathy with Deputy Johnson's point of view, but I must say I rather expected that point of view would have come from the Farmers' Benches or from somebody representing a proprietory class than from any Deputy on the Labour Benches.

We have no responsibility.

It would be foolish to do away with this section just when people are beginning to know of its existence and when it is beginning to yield fairly useful results. I do not know if Deputy Johnson read sub-section 6 (b):-

The valuation of the rateable tenement or hereditament consisting of or comprising the new building shall not be deemed to be reduced in pursuance of sub-section (2) of the said section 69 to an amount less than the amount at which such tenement or hereditament was valued immediately before the completion of such erection, enlargement, or improvement.

In other words, the new section will only operate in cases where the valuation has been increased. Where the valuation has not been increased the full rate will be paid. In that way there will be no possibility of a situation arising such as arose in the city of Dublin, where, as a result of the application of this particular section, the rates in the city dropped to the extent of £31,000. That has been done away with.

Has the Minister any knowledge of where a building was extended and the valuation was not increased?

There are several cases. This is a new provision. In the past it did not matter whether or not the valuation was increased; one got the reduction in any case; but in future there will be no reduction unless the valuation is increased.

That is the redeeming feature the Minister put forward; but my experience is that in connection with any house to which an extension has been made the valuation has been immediately increased. If not, the local authority is not doing its duty.

The local authority does not make the valuation.

That is the duty of the Commissioners of Valuation.

I say the local authorities have power.

Indeed they have not.

You will find that if they are not minding their job the Commissioners will be very quickly on the scene.

I would like to know what is meant by sub-section 6 (b):—

"...was valued immediately before the completion of such erection..."

Does the valuation take place before the building is completed?

The thing is that the old valuation will not be changed.

The old valuation of an entirely new building?

Yes, where it is a new building. Where a case is made out for a reduction, that reduction will not take place to such an extent as to reduce the valuation to what it was before the re-valuation was made.

Take the case of an entirely new building being erected in a field never built upon before. What is the position there?

They will get a two-thirds reduction.

Does the Minister not know that the moment any person who would have an addition made to his dwelling was aware this section operated in his favour he would immediately approach the local authority to have a revision of his valuation carried out so as to take advantage of the legislation?

Under this Act the Commissioners of Valuation will do that.

It is a change?

Hitherto, was it not the local authority compiled a list and sent out that list at certain periods— I think in July?

For re-valuation.

They had nothing to do with the valuation.

They sent up a list, but the extent to which the valuation was altered was not a matter for the local authorities but for the proper valuation authorities.

I am not saying it is a matter for the local authorities, but it will enable them to take advantage of this particular feature of the Act put forward by the Minister, and it will nullify the effect of what he puts against Deputy Johnson's amendment.

In no case does the local authority suffer, because in no case will the rate be less than it was before.

Nonsense.

That is the Act.

Will the Minister deal with the matter as affecting buildings which are not covered by paragraph (b) of sub-section (6), which seems to refer to new constructions in connection with an existing building? Most of the buildings I am referring to are not new erections attached to reconstructed buildings.

It affects the valuation of the holding which is reconstructed.

Perhaps it would assist the House if the Minister would make a case for this section. We might then be able to understand it better.

The Deputy's amendment goes beyond this section.

The Deputy's amendment is to delete sub-section 6.

But it goes beyond the sub-section that Deputy Johnson wants the Minister to confine his remarks to.

I want the Minister to make his case for the whole subsection—for the extension of exemption and the extension of the period during which the building may be deemed to be a new building. We have not had a case for that made. It may be useful if the Minister would make his case in favour of that extension. Then, perhaps, we would be somewhat clearer as to what is involved in this proposal.

I do not know whether the Deputy wants me to make a statement in connection with Clause 11, but it seems to me that the whole clause is involved in this. This clause contains provisions of two kinds (a) Changes in machinery and procedure; (b) an extension of the time for the erection of a new building.

A.Changes in Procedure.—In the working of Section 69 the following difficulties have appeared:—

1. Unless the building is valued separately from the rest of the tenement it is impossible to say exactly what is the amount of the valuation to be reduced. There must be some way, therefore, of segregating the valuation of the building from the remainder for the section to work satisfactorily. This has been provided so far by order of the Minister, but it was not possible to make that order clear and mandatory without a definite legislative authority.

2. It is often hard to say exactly whether a building is or is not a new building. Section 69 leaves the question to the Minister, but only "in case of dispute." Local authorities have given numerous decisions which cannot be justified but which, being in favour of documents, are undisputed, and, therefore, cannot be interfered with. It is essential that, in the future, there should be a uniform set of principles governing these decisions.

3. Questions have arisen as to the position of out-offices to dwelling houses. If such erections are completely separated from the house and stand alone they must be treated as separate new buildings, though that was never the intention of the section.

4. A claim for reduction could be made at any time in the local financial year and, if upheld, the estimate of rates was upset to that extent, causing grave inconvenience to the rating authority.

These points of difficulty are dealt with as follows:—

1. Sub-clause (2) provides for a segregation by the Commissioner of Valuation of the portion of the valuation of the tenement relating to the new building. It confirms the determinations of this kind already made by the Commissioners under Order.

2. Sub-clause (3) requires that before the valuation of a building is reduced it must have been determined to be a new building. The determinations already made by local authorities are not to be interfered with by the clause. As regards all buildings not already the subject of such local determinations, no reduction will be given until the valuation has been revised. The determination whether the building is or is not a new building will be made normally by the Commissioner when preparing the valuation list. The few cases which remain outstanding from the lists for 1926-7 will be dealt with by the Minister himself.

3. Sub-clause (3) provides that garages, etc., are to be treated as part of the main structure, not as separate buildings. Thus they can still be reckoned for the purpose of considering whether the alteration of the main building is so "substantial" as to make it a new building.

4. The determinations of the new buildings will appear with the valuation lists in March. If an occupier is dissatisfied with an adverse determination he can appeal. If he neglects to appeal before the 1st April he gets no reduction, even if he succeeds, during the ensuing year. Delay in determining the appeal, once brought, however, will not affect his rights, and in any event a successful appellant will get the reduction in the year after that in which he appeals.

Provision is also made for the publication of a "New Buildings List," etc., under procedure orders, see sub-clause (7).

B. Extension of time for erecting new Buildings.—The experiment first tried by Section 69 has been a successful one. It is felt that it would be a mistake to allow the section to stop working on the 1st April next, just as people are beginning to know and take advantage of its provisions. Sub-clause (6) therefore extends the time for the erection of a new building to the 1st April, 1930, but it limits the reduction of valuation for such buildings as do not come within the time fixed by the original section. No valuation of such building is to be reduced under the section to an amount less than the valuation in force immediately before the erection or improvement. Thus, the rateable valuation of the rating area will never be reduced by the erection or improvement of a building, though the increase of valuation caused by the building is postponed for seven years.

My difficulty still remains. It seems to me, from reading this section and the Minister's explanation, that he is confining his attention to additions to existing buildings or reconstructed buildings. I would like to put this specific question. If A, B and Co. desire to erect a new factory in a certain field which has never yet had a building on it, what is the position of that in respect to rating under the new proposal?

In that case, assuming there was no rate paid there before, the property will be re-valued and they get two-thirds of the reduction. If there was a building there before, the rating of which was higher than what the rating of two-thirds of the new valuation would be, it would not operate, or only operate so as to leave it as it was before the new valuation.

I think that that clearly justifies my contention. The only point the Minister is making is that if there was a building in existence, and rated, there would be no exemption which would reduce the amount payable by rates. I want to say that this provision goes very much beyond that. It extends to all new buildings and extends the period of exemption and the period during which new buildings will be erected. It continues the exemption over a longer period for those buildings which have already been built.

Surely not.

I think it does. A building which has already been built and which is exempt for a certain period of years under the existing Act is to have an addition to the period of years.

No, it is only in respect of buildings not completed by April, 1927. In respect of buildings which are at present in course of construction and which would not be completed by that date, it is extended in respect of them, but the original Act, in so far as the length of its life is concerned, limits the exemption for a period of seven years. We will presume that there is a house reconstructed, the valuation of which was £20, and that the new valuation was fixed at £20. In that case the rates will be charged on £20 for seven years, and not on two-thirds.

There was great confusion about that. I had in mind a case in Wexford where the old valuation was £40, and at 10/- in the pound that would mean rates to the extent of £20. If a new addition is added it would bring it up to £60.

This tightens up any looseness there was in the previous Act; at least it is intended to do so.

In the case I cited it would be £20 as against £16 13s. 4d.

There is a point which seems to be overlooked. Deputy Johnson talks about the loss to the local authority. Let us take the case he cited. There is a building in a portion of a field valued at a certain rate. That building is increased very considerably. The valuation of that building cannot be less than that of the old structure. Under this Bill there will be an additional income coming to the local authority. What is the extra expense on the local authority?

It happens to be heavy at Ardnacrusha. It means a great deal of additional expense in the way of hospital accommodation, and so forth.

I happen to be a member of a local authority, and its contribution to hospitals is purely voluntary. In considering matters of this importance we would like to have something a little more practical than that which Deputy Johnson mentioned. May I put the case of the other side? Deputy Johnson asks why it is necessary to tax the ratepayers in order to get these new buildings. I pointed out when this matter was under consideration some time ago in connection with the original Act that it is essential in this poor country of ours to give encouragement to building owners to erect factories, and give employment. Why is it necessary to give that? Because, unfortunately, the position as regards the city of Dublin is that it is the most expensive place in Europe to erect a building. If a person connected with any industry has under consideration the erection of a factory, is it likely that he will erect that factory in the place where it is most expensive to build? Of course, he will not. Therefore, it is necessary to give some inducement to that industrialist in order to get him to invest his money here. What is the effect of this? If we do not offer attractions of this kind we do not get factories erected and we do not get employment for the many unemployed around us. For the life of me, I cannot fathom the object Deputy Johnson has in mind in opposing this proposal, because the effect of his amendment would be that this attraction, which I hold is very considerable, would not be there, because the valuation, as pointed out previously, of many of these factories which we have recently erected here is very high, and, even with a rate of 16/- in the pound, it amounts to a considerable sum. If you do not offer that attraction you do not get the factory erected, you do not get a large amount of employment for the unemployed, and you inflate the charge on the local authority, and also on the State—in the one case through the medium of the poor law in assisting the unemployed, and, in the other case, through the medium of the Unemployment Insurance Act. That is the alternative that Deputy Johnson puts up to us, that we should inflate the cost to the local authority and the cost to the State and not give this attraction to those building houses. I think there are very few Deputies who have given any consideration to this problem who will support Deputy Johnson's proposal, even amongst his own party.

The Deputy sometimes expresses himself as being very proud of the achievements of the Dublin Commissioners, but now he is expressing the view, inferentially, that they cannot be expected to encourage the erection of factories by giving special facilities. The obligation must be imposed upon the Pembroke Urban Council, the Rathmines Urban Council or any other council by this Dáil. We are supposed to know what is best for the local authorities in respect of the remission of rates, and we are supposed to impose an obligation on them to do this, whether they would wish to give facilities to a particular factory or not. If the Deputy is so anxious regarding the improvement to buildings, factories and the like, perhaps he would join with me in pressing upon the Minister the desirability of so changing the law as to remove the imposition that is placed upon people who improve their factories or their buildings. Any improvement is immediately followed by an increase in valuation, which is the most effective deterrent on building that I know. But the Deputy would join with those who ask that a firm like Messrs. Players, who have ample funds and ability to pay even out of their business operations in this country, should be treated in exactly the same way as any other company or firm which is desirous of risking things. The Deputy wants to make this wholesale and mandatory exemption from rates.

The Minister assures me that the meaning of these hundred or two hundred lines is not that which I have read into them. I hope that will appear in the final reading, and, with the assurance that the Minister gives me, I am not going to press the amendment. If I am convinced, on a re-reading of the sections, with his explanations, I hope that the Senators who on a previous occasion did a certain surgical operation with his previous Local Government Bill may repeat it on this Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move:—

"In page 7, to delete in line 56 the words `The Blind Persons Act, 1920.' "

This is an amendment of an entirely different kind. In Section 3, sub-section (1), there is a reference to the transfer of the powers and duties of the county council, in a series of Acts, to the boards of health. That list of Acts includes the Blind Persons Act, 1920. The deletion of this from the Schedule would mean, of course, that there would be no transfer to the boards of health. My object, I may as well confess, in moving this amendment is to find out from the Minister whether there is any intention on the part of the Ministry to put into operation the Blind Persons Act of 1920. Section 2 of that Act says:

"It shall be the duty of the council of every county and every county borough, whether in combination with any other council or councils or otherwise, to make arrangements to the satisfaction of the Minister for promoting the welfare of blind persons ordinarily resident within their area, and such council may for this purpose provide and maintain or contribute towards workshops, hospitals, homes or other places for the reception of blind persons and with the approval of the Minister do such other things as may appear to them desirable for the purpose aforesaid. the council shall"—

this is mandatory upon the Council, and the Minister is responsible under the Act for seeing that the council do the work—

"within twelve months after the passing of this Act prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme for the exercise of their powers under this section."

It will be seen that the section is very widely drawn and that the council could do very many things to aid the blind of this country provided they got the Minister's approval. They would be empowered to provide homes for the blind, to supplement the earnings in occupations which are specially suitable for blind persons; they may establish a Braille library, do many things for the assistance of the blind, and encourage employment and make them self-dependent to some degree. But we have not had any or practically no schemes of that kind submitted by the councils in the past to the Minister for approval. I speak of that very broadly. Whether there are any schemes or not I cannot say, but very little indeed has been done, if anything at all, in fulfilment of that obligation which is jointly upon the council and upon the Ministry. I would like to have some assurance, when we are putting in a schedule of this kind, to transfer the responsibilities from the county councils to the boards of health, that it means, and the Minister will see that it means, not merely a transfer of responsibility under the Act, but will mean the actual fulfilment of the obligations under the Act. This is a section of the community whose lot has been considerably worsened since the coming of the Free State. If my information is reliable, and I think it is, the position of the blind persons in this country is very much worse than it was prior to the passing of the Treaty, and the fault is largely, I fear, that of the Minister for not stimulating the councils to do their duty under the Act. I would like to have some assurance from the Minister that the intention in inserting this Blind Persons Act in the Schedule is that there shall be henceforth, at least after the passing of the Act, a fulfilment of the obligations, and that he will do all that lies in his power to ensure that the local councils will be reminded of their obligations and will fulfil them.

It is largely to meet the views expressed by Deputy Johnson here that this addition to the principal Act has been inserted. The machinery for dealing with blind persons is by no means operating smoothly at the present time. As the Deputy pointed out, Section 2 of the Blind Persons Act, 1920, imposes on each county council the duty of making arrangements to the satisfaction of the Minister for promoting the welfare of blind persons in their county, and of submitting to the Minister for approval a scheme for that purpose. Sub-section (4) of that section empowers the council to carry out their duties in connection with such a scheme by means of a committee, of which two-thirds of the members are to be drawn from the council. The functions of such committees were transferred by Section 15 of the Local Government Act, 1925, to boards of health, and the proposal of the Act of 1926 is to vest in boards of health the powers of the county council under the Blind Persons Act, 1920.

The grounds of this transfer are the desirability of having this service administered in conjunction with public health services by the board of health, and the failure of the county councils so far to formulate schemes for the welfare of the blind, the only council which took action in regard to bringing such a scheme into operation being the Dublin County Council, although this Department drew attention to the duties devolving on county councils under the Act of 1920. The failure of councils to take action in this respect is probably due to the comparatively small number of blind in the Saorstát, being only about 3,250, and also to the fact that if the blind resident in county boroughs are excluded there is an average of less than 100 blind persons per county. Of this number, a recent return shows only about 94 blind persons in the Saorstát counties suitable for training, and not yet provided for in institutions. The county councils have not the machinery for investigating the cases of the blind persons scattered through their counties, and the administration of schemes by them would mean appointments of more officers. So I think that Deputy Johnson may feel reassured that the passing of this section will tend in the direction of improving the administration of this particular service.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported without amendment.
Ordered: That the Bill be received for final consideration.

I move: "That the Bill do now pass."

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share