When I was introducing this Bill I expected it would have been non-controversial. I think now that the Bill has been circulated probably there will not be much more discussion on it. I think it was just because only the long title of the Bill was known certain Deputies took exception to it. However, there was a discussion on the First Reading and a division was challenged. Because of that discussion it will be necessary for me to make a statement dealing with the position, particularly the position of the Commissioner in Offaly who will be mainly affected by the Bill.
In reply to a question by Deputy Davin on January 27th, 1926, I stated I was considering the possibility of having an election in Offaly at an early date. The answer to that question provoked quite a number of resolutions from people interested in that particular county, and the burthen of all these resolutions was to continue the Commissioner for some time longer. I gave a good deal of consideration to those representations and, as a result, I decided to retain the Commissioner for some time longer. My action in doing so has been criticised and in order to justify what I did on that occasion it will be necessary for me to give some account of the stewardship of that Commissioner in Offaly.
At the time the Commissioner took over office in Offaly the rate on agricultural land was between 5/6 and 6/5 in the £, and on other hereditaments it was from 7/- to 8/- in the £. The general rate for the current year to the 31st March, 1927, was on land 6/9½, and on other hereditaments 6/10½. This latter rate represents a reduction of £3,000 odd on the levy for the previous year. The levy for March, 1928, is down by over £3,000 as compared with the levy on the 31st March, 1927. Since he took office the Commissioner in Offaly has succeeded in reducing the rates by over £6,000. With attenuated resources he has achieved important results. As regards rates, the Commissioner inherited from the Council a legacy of £44,000 uncollected on the 30th September, 1924. In March, 1926 the uncollected rates amounted to £16,389. That was lodged in the following month. I might add that by March, 1925, all previously irrecoverable arrears had been got in, and the outstanding rates in March, 1925, were in respect of that half-year only.
In the matter of overdraft, the liability to the bank on current account for the year ending 30th September 1924, was £30,766. The overdraft on the 31st March, 1926, was £16,336, notwithstanding the fact that the overdraft was reduced by a sum of £14,000 odd and the unpaid debts of the Council and the abolished unions which the Council had failed to discharge were paid off. These amounted to £25,000 for the half-year ending March, 1925. In the half-year ending March, 1926, the debts of the dissolved rural district councils were reduced to the amount of £11,600, and these debts were further reduced on the 30th September, 1926, to £6,226. On the 31st March, 1927, it is estimated that the assets will exceed the liabilities by £13,000. It is clear that up to March, 1926, the work of the Commissioner generally was concerned with putting the finances of the Council on a proper footing. As has been pointed out, the overdraft of £30,766 on the 30th September, 1924, was reduced in March. 1926, to £16,333. I considered it was unwise to determine the period of office of the Commissioner until the overdraft had been cleared off, the rates collected, and until the other business of the Council was in such a way that it could be handed over in a proper way to the County Council. The road administration is a fair example of this. Under the County Council, from February, 1922, to September, 1924, the mileage of roads steamrolled was 7½ miles. From September, 1924, to March, 1927, under the Commissioner, 51½ miles have been steamrolled. Similarly the number of men employed on the roads has been steadily increased. For the half year ending 30th September, 1923, the number of men employed was 234. For the half-year ending 30th September, 1924, there were employed under the County Council 401 men on the roads. Under the Commissioner for the half-year ending 30th September, 1925, there were employed 751 men, and in the half-year ending September, 1926, under the Commissioner, the number of men employed was 1,110.
The wiping out of the overdraft, the collecting of the arrears of rate, the increase in the steam-rolled road mileage and in the number of men employed, apart altogether from the re-building and re-furnishing of the courthouse just completed, the re-building of the county bridges and the repairs of the county home, etc., are plain facts which would satisfy any fair-minded, reasonable man that the case for the reversion to the county councillors in 1926 required very careful consideration, and that in deciding not to withdraw the Commissioner in 1926, my judgment was abundantly justified.
I felt it necessary to make that statement, in view of the criticisms and certain suggestions that were made here on the occasion of the First Reading of this Bill. The matter is really not a strictly pertinent one to the present issue, as irrespective of whether the Commissioner was a success or a failure in his job, it would be ludicrous to insist on two elections where one would serve the same purpose. Under Section 72 of the Act of 1925 it will be necessary, as a result of the amendment passed to that section, to hold elections in Offaly County and for the Urban Councils of Tipperary and Cobh in September next. The cost of the election for Offaly would amount to £600. Without this Bill I would be forced to hold another election for the urban authorities in January of the following year and for the Offaly Co. Council and the other county councils in June of next year. That would mean that the ratepayers there would be put to the expense and inconvenience of holding two elections for the same purpose within a few months of each other. Apart from the expense altogether, it is doubtful if you could get candidates to go up for such a short period. It is merely with a view to obviating an obvious anomaly that this Bill is introduced and that I ask for a Second Reading for it. There is no principle of any kind involved.
