I take it that the amendments will be considered in Committee.
Public Business. - Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1929—Recommitted.
Will that enable us to raise matters in relation to sections to which no amendments have been tabled?
No. If we go into Committee merely on the amendments, it would not be possible to raise in Committee matters which are not the subject of an amendment.
In relation to some of the sections which were not discussed on the Committee Stage, I think it was agreed that there should be a second Committee Stage of the Bill from that part of it at which we ceased.
Would the Minister agree to recommit the Bill for that?
It would depend. If we are limited to the number of sections required to be discussed it would be easy to carry through by general agreement.
The number of sections on which there would be anything said would be very limited— that is, sections which are not dealt with by amendments on the Order Paper would be very few. I do not think there would be anything more than questions in order to get information that would be asked for.
I think the simplest thing to do, seeing how the Bill was dealt with before and in order to accomplish what Deputy Lemass suggests, would be to recommit the Bill, and the Chair will not put the sections one by one but simply take such sections as Deputies desire to ask questions on.
I want to be clear on the procedure. On the second Committee Stage am I to understand that the speaking rights of members will be confined to the procedure that would be adopted on the Report Stage?
No. We are going into Committee in order that Deputies will have Committee rights. That is the essence of it.
Ordered that the Bill be considered in Committee.
As before, we will not take amendments to the definition section but consider questions on the appropriate amendments.
Section 1 agreed to.
Amendment 1 is a drafting amendment arising out of the fact that the town clerkship has been abolished and the office of City Manager and Town Clerk combined. I move:—
In page 4, line 6, after the word "Manager" to insert the words "and Town Clerk," and after the word "appointed," line 6, to insert the words "by or," and in line 8, after the word "Manager," to insert the words "and Town Clerk," and to delete lines 17, 18 and 19.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 4, before line 20, to insert the words:
"the expression ‘officer' includes the person or firm who at the passing of this Act holds or hold the office of solicitor or solicitors to the added urban districts."
So far back as the Local Government Act of 1919, Section 8, sub-section (1), the standing solicitor of any local authority was recognised as a pensionable officer. In drawing that sub-section words were used which have given rise to some doubt. The sub-section says that any person duly appointed as standing solicitor by a local authority before the passing of the Act shall be deemed a pensionable officer. When the British Parliament were passing that Act, apparently it did not occur to them that in many cases a firm of solicitors occupied that position, and the object of the amendment is to put that matter clear. I am sure that the Minister will carry out the Bill which he has introduced in the spirit as well as in the letter, but in order to avoid any misinterpretation of the statute, or any contention being afterwards raised as to a firm not being a person, I have proposed the amendment standing in my name. As I have said, the only object of the amendment is to prevent any controversy as to a firm of solicitors being in any worse position than an individual.
Under no circumstances can we agree to regard a firm of solicitors as an officer. When the Dublin Corporation Act of 1900 was going through, the Corporation sought to get a firm of solicitors established as an officer, and to have pensionable rights. It was turned down. In the Act of 1919, which the Deputy speaks about, it was expressly stated that a person who was a standing solicitor to a local body was to have certain pension rights, but there was no mention of a firm. The Act of 1919 was passed in rather peculiar circumstances, and under our Act of 1925, as far as solicitors were concerned generally throughout the country, we actually rescinded, in respect of officers appointed subsequent to 1925, the provision with regard to pension rights for solicitors that was contained in the 1919 Act, while we safeguarded the position of men who got rights under the 1919 Act. But we actually went back on the principle that was brought into that. While here in Section 83 we are making provision for the compensation of part-time officers, which would include solicitors, if there are any part-time officers solicitors to any of the local bodies concerned, we definitely refuse to accept the position that a firm of solicitors, acting for a local body and paid their full taxed costs by the local body for their work, can be regarded as officers and be assured of pension rights. There is no way by which a pension right can be secured to a firm, and there is no way by which a firm, which is paid ordinary taxed costs by a very good client, should get in addition pension rights of any kind. I submit to the Deputy that it is really not reasonable or practicable, and that the 1919 Act was passed——
The 1919 Act, as the Minister knows, left out of consideration the question of a firm through inadvertence. I take it that he is now leaving out the question of a firm advertently, that he is adopting the principle that a firm of solicitors who were appointed as standing solicitors to any local authority are not to be entitled to compensation, that that is being done advisedly——
Yes.
— and that he proposes to dismiss them from their positions without any compensation whatever. He will understand that any member of my profession who observes the rules will take an entirely different view of it. I would ask the Minister, even now, to undertake to reconsider it and to consider as to whether he could not treat members of a firm, or even the senior member of a firm, as an officer. If he takes the opposite view I take it that it is his considered view.
Very considered, and it would apply to a firm of architects, a firm of road contractors or any other firm.
I would remind Deputy Wolfe that an amendment on the same lines to the Railways Act of 1924 was turned down for the very same reason.
Would that apply to firms acting as solicitors to rural district councils which are now abolished?
It applies to all firms.
I am very glad to hear that.
I am afraid the Deputy is wrong if he is referring to the Cork County Council. No firm of solicitors acted for the Cork County Council.
They acted for rural district councils. They are coming up for their pound of flesh, which they will not get.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 1, as amended, put and agreed to.
With reference to amendment 2 to Section 4, the Chair could not accept an amendment on the Fourth Stage of a Local Government Bill to dissolve a body like the Dublin Port and Docks Board, which has a statutory existence.
If the Chair so rules I do not want to press the point, but it seems to me that as the Dublin Port and Docks Board exercises in the area of the Corporation certain functions which should be the functions of the Corporation, it might properly be dealt with under this Bill, even to the point of abolition, as the Waterworks Committee and similar bodies are being abolished by the Bill.
I am not prepared to say whether it could not have been dealt with under the Bill as it was drafted, but certainly on the Fourth Stage of this Bill, or even on the Committee Stage, an amendment of this character, dealing with a body which has an existence such as the Dublin Port and Docks Board, would be outside the scope of the Bill.
I move:—
Before line 39, page 3, to insert the words "the expression ‘the Northern Borough' means the Borough of Howth established by this Act."
The purpose of this amendment is to provide for the establishment of a northern coastal borough. I have tabled this amendment in order that this question of the establishment of a northern coastal borough, which has to some extent agitated public opinion in the area concerned, could be discussed by the Dáil. It is a question upon which my own mind is not fully made up, although it does seem to me personally that the balance of the argument is in favour of the establishment of this northern borough. There are, however, arguments against its establishment which have considerable weight and which will have to be taken into consideration when this amendment is being decided. I think, however, it would have been a pity if the Bill had gone through all its stages without this question having been discussed, because undoubtedly the interests of a large number of people who reside in the district over which the northern borough would extend will be affected by our decision.
The position is that the Bill provides machinery by which the Urban District Council of Howth can apply to have its boundaries extended, following an inquiry held by the Local Government Department. It is, I think, very unlikely that the facilities given in the Bill for increasing the area of the Howth Urban District Council are likely to be availed of. If the area adjacent to the area of the urban district council now under the jurisdiction of the county council is to be given urban control it will have to be done, in my opinion, either under this Bill or by some other Bill specially introduced for that purpose. When Deputies come to consider this question they should do so well informed as to the facts relating to the various services — water supply, sewerage, roads, housing, etc. — appertaining to the districts concerned.
The surveyor of the Howth Urban District Council prepared a report, relating to the services in the areas concerned, which he presented to the Commissioner for the Howth Urban District Council, and which report was published in the Press. He pointed out in relation to the water supply that the position is that Malahide has a local but a somewhat precarious supply of hard water from the Swords system; that Portmarnock is dependent on whatever surplus may be available from the Malahide service; that Baldoyle has no service at all, and that Raheny has no general supply but that a few residents have arranged with the Howth Urban District Council for special supplies on payment of 4/- per 1,000 gallons, plus £1 per annum water rent. It seems, therefore, unlikely that the water supply available to people resident in Malahide, Portmarnock and Baldoyle will be improved for a considerable time to come if these areas are left under the county council, whereas one of the first tasks of the northern borough, if established, would be to look after that service, which from every point of view is very important, if not essential.
It is in relation to the sewerage service, however, that the most serious difficulties arise. The position concerning that service is that the Howth Urban District Council has a limited supply of main sewers, which discharge at the west pier and at Sutton Strand. The majority of the houses still discharge directly on the Howth and Sutton foreshore. Malahide has a local system which requires a new intercepting sewer, and discharges raw sewerage into the estuary adjoining the Velvet Strand at Portmarnock, which, as Deputies know, is one of the popular seaside resorts adjacent to the city of Dublin. Portmarnock has no sewerage system, but some private drains discharge on the Velvet Strand. Baldoyle has no sewerage system, and the same applies to Raheny. The area it is proposed to include in Howth Borough contains two main roads, one from Killester to Howth and the other from Coolock to Malahide. It also contains a large number of cottages built under the Labourers Acts, which, the borough surveyor points out, could be dealt with by the borough under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. At present, the cost of their upkeep varies from 7d. to 9d. in the £ on the valuation. Under a single authority this rate contribution could be substantially reduced. The Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts are not in force in Howth Urban District, or in any other part of the proposed borough area.
It seems reasonable to suppose that if Howth, Baldoyle, Raheny and Malahide districts are amalgamated into one area, and given a borough status, action could be taken to provide the essential services of a water supply, sewerage, etc., to the residents in a district which is more than three-quarters urbanised in parts at the present time, and the urbanisation of which is proceeding at a very rapid pace. The rate of urbanisation would be increased if water supplies were available, and if a sewerage system existed. It should be the aim of the Government to encourage the spread of the city over a wide area, so that the density of population in the old city will be somewhat diminished.
It is almost inevitable, if the Bill goes through in its present form, that in a very short time there will be an agitation in this area, or parts of it, to be included in the city. The inclusion of the whole of the area in the city would, in my opinion, be the best solution of the difficulty. However, there seems to be no hope that that solution will be adopted here by agreement, as apparently the Minister for Local Government is strongly opposed to it.
As against establishing a northern borough, it has been urged that it would act as an impediment to the subsequent inclusion of the area piecemeal into the city proper, that a local civic spirit might arise which would seek to preserve the existence of the borough when established, and thus erect a permanent barrier against the extension of the city northwards along the coast. The area is not sufficiently large to make that danger one of great moment, because it could be consumed whole by the city, as in this Bill the larger districts — considered from the point of view of population, area and valuation — of Rathmines and Pembroke are, in fact, being consumed whole. There is a case for the establishment of the northern borough. There is, in any case, a number of strong arguments in favour of putting these districts under urban control and not under county council control.
I know that one of the main arguments of the Minister for Local Government against the detachment of further areas from the county council will be that by doing so the continuance of the county council's administration will be made more difficult, because the rateable valuation, the size and the population of the county council's area will be substantially reduced. That argument cannot be ignored, but it is not, in my opinion, as strong as the Minister for Local Government appears to think. As was pointed out on the Second Reading debate, even if the whole of the proposed Greater Dublin area was detached from the county council, the valuation and population of the part remaining under the county council would still be larger than is the case of other county councils, which are, apparently, functioning in a satisfactory manner. It does not seem impossible to devise some system which would enable services like that of the county medical officer of health to be maintained in the county, even if this borough was established. The establishment of the southern borough could be opposed for almost identical reasons with those which the Minister advanced against the establishment of the northern borough.
The existence of the borough will not affect the position of the county medical officer of health. He will deal with the borough.
That is so. I was saying that the main arguments for the establishment of the southern borough apply with almost equal force to the establishment of the northern borough, except that parts of the area have never had experience of urban control. I think it is reasonable to expect that the trend of development of the city will be in that direction, because it offers many advantages from the point of view of residence, being within easy reach of the city, while at the same time possessing facilities which residence in rural or semirural districts affords. I would like to have the matter discussed and decided by the Dáil on its merits, and without any consideration of Party interests. As a matter of fact, it has not been discussed by the Party on this side at all, and differences of opinion in relation to the proposal probably exist. Some of the most vigorous opponents of the proposal may be seated on these benches, just as I know some of the strongest advocates of the proposal are seated on the benches opposite.
If the Dáil, however, comes to the consideration of the matter, purely from the point of view of getting the best system to serve the interests of the residents of those districts and the interests of the citizens of Dublin, I think it will decide that, in the event of amalgamation with the city not being possible, urban control through the compulsory extension of the boundaries of Howth Urban District Council for the establishlishment of a new northern borough will be the best method to adopt.
I rise to support the amendment, which will have the effect of setting up a northern borough. In my opinion the drafting of the Bill, if it is to achieve the aims and objects of the drafters, is inconsistent inasmuch as it does not set up machinery to establish a northern borough. Deputy Lemass stated that as good a case can be put forward for the setting up of a northern borough as for the setting up of a southern borough. I believe that a stronger case can be advanced for the setting up of a northern borough than for a southern one. In the case of a southern borough you have Killiney and Ballybrack Council looking after the affairs in that area. You have Dalkey Urban Council looking after their area. You have Dun Laoghaire Urban Council looking after Dun Laoghaire, and Blackrock Urban Council looking after Blackrock. It has been admitted that so far as developments in those townships are concerned, they have been far in advance of those in North County Dublin. The Minister may not agree, but I think, on looking into the chaotic situation which exists in North County Dublin, he will find that what I am saying is true. Let us review the situation in North County Dublin. What do we find? So far as Howth is concerned, it extends from Howth to Sutton. The Howth Urban Council has been dissolved and replaced by a Commissioner. A few hundred yards from the boundary of the Howth Urban District you find Baldoyle, and, as one who knows that area very well, I can say that the same chaotic conditions do not exist in any village as near a city as Baldoyle is to Dublin. It was formerly under the jurisdiction of the North Dublin Rural Council, and its area extended as far as Portmarnock Bridge. So far as Portmarnock was concerned when its boundary came to there, it was under the jurisdiction of Balrothery Rural Council.
As Deputy Lemass pointed out, the conditions in a number of places there are chaotic. There is no water supply in Baldoyle. I suggest to the Minister that this is a very serious situation so far as the health of the population is concerned. The people are dependent solely for drinking water on a well, the water of which is not by any means good. Portmarnock has been developed to a great extent in recent years, and I venture to say that for some years past it has been the most popular resort in County Dublin. For a number of years it has been the practice on every Saturday and Sunday throughout the summer for as many as 10,000 people to travel by train from Dublin to Portmarnock, not taking into consideration those who went there by bus or bicycle. There was no water supply there with the exception of an old well which was condemned many years ago, but eighteen months ago they got an increased supply from the reservoir in Malahide. That is not adequate for the needs of the people. There is no sewerage system there. That is an extraordinary state of affairs, when it is taken into consideration that thousands of people make Portmarnock their rendezvous on Saturdays and Sundays, and that the strand is looked upon as the playground of the children of Dublin, and also that a large number of huts of timber and corrugated iron have been erected there in recent years. No attempt whatever has been made there at town planning. When a competent authority has jurisdiction over that area eventually, it will find it extremely difficult to administer so far as sewerage or water supply is concerned.
While Deputy Lemass has stated that he believes in a northern borough he has not stated whether it is to be a northern coastal borough or simply a northern borough. I believe in the formation of a northern borough. In addition to Malahide, Howth and Portmarnock I think you could not exclude places like Kinsealy and Balgriffin. These should be brought into a northern borough in view of the manner in which these places are developing and the large number of houses being put up there. I do not think that it is in the interests of the development of North County Dublin to leave such places under the jurisdiction of the county council. You abolished Balrothery and North Dublin Councils, so that it would not mean any extra compensation so far as the officials are concerned. It may be alleged by the Minister, and I think the Department's principal objection is, that if you agree to set up this northern borough it will take such a large portion of area from the county council that that body will not be able to carry on in a proper manner. If the Minister looks into that he will find that it would be possible to form a new northern coastal borough, excluding Balgriffin and Raheny and only bringing in Baldoyle, Howth and Portmarnock. Deputy Lemass said that so far as these are concerned they should come in under the jurisdiction of the Howth Urban Council. So far as the majority of people are concerned they would not like to come in under the jurisdiction of that council but they would like to come in on equal terms to a borough, not to be called the Howth Urban District but the Northern Coastal Borough.
I do not object to the proposal on the ground that it would rob the country council of a certain amount of its financial basis, but I object to it on the ground that it proposes to extend the present Howth Urban District to take in a rural area outside where for 2,200 acres you have only two persons to every three acres. That would mean that you would simply take an area and add it on to the Howth Urban District, an area in which for every acre there is only 6 of a person, and call it a borough. Because you throw it together it is to get all kinds of services and pay heavily for them simply because you call it a borough. I do not understand Deputy Lemass putting forward a proposal like this and saying that the Minister has a proposal in his Bill by which Howth can extend its area, if it so desires, but it will not do it. Then he quotes in support of what he thinks should be done the surveyor of the Howth Urban Council. I wonder what connection the surveyor of the Howth Urban Council has with the proposal. Surely it is not as surveyor of the Howth Urban Council that he put forward the scheme. If the scheme is a reasonable scheme put forward by the surveyor, surely it ought to commend itself to the council, but it is not reasonable.
Has not the council been dissolved?
I hope the council will be there soon. You cannot put the Commissioners in and get them to provide services simply because they are Commissioners, and have no burden by way of payment for the services on the people any more than you can call an area a borough and provide services for that borough without calling on the people there to pay for them. The amendment if passed would mark out a rural area in which there is less than one person to the acre, and would take in an area in which, while we are told there has been tremendous development, in the Census periods between 1911 and 1926 the number of houses only increased by 33, from 274 to 307, and there has been only an increase of population of 38, from 1,376 to 1,414. That is in the rural portion of the Balrothery area which the Deputy would take in.
If the number of portable houses which are used by people during the summer time are taken into account, these figures are not correct by any means.
This body here is not the right body to draw a line from round a particular rural district, and say that this should be a borough because we are told a number of portable huts are brought out there and used by a number of people who live there.
The figures which the Minister gave us are those relating to the period between the one Census and the other?
Yes.
Could the Minister give the figures since 1926?
No, I cannot give them at the moment.
Has he included in them the number of huts to which Deputy Cassidy refers?
I am including the figures given in the Census as to what are houses, and, from what I know, nothing that looks like a house has been excluded.
That is a roundabout answer.
The point I desire to make is that we are asked to form a borough within an area which is a rural area.
The Minister states that this is an exclusively rural area. Is the Minister aware that as far as Malahide is concerned, Malahide has a population equal to, if not greater than, the urban district of Killiney and Ballybrack which has been brought into the southern borough?
I hope the Deputy understands that that makes the rural part of the district all the more rural. It makes the population outside Malahide, Baldoyle and Sutton all the more scattered and all the more difficult to serve. I object to the proposal inasmuch as it purports to make a borough of an area that is a rural district — an area that has less than one person to the acre. I am suggesting an alternative. If for any reason of summer traffic or any other consideration, the amenities of Dublin City are involved in the question, this is not the body that ought to make a change in the conditions. I am proposing another amendment here as against this amendment and I submit to the House that it is the most reasonable and practical way to deal with the matter. I am proposing by amendment 82 to extend the City of Dublin on the Raheny side, to take in that portion of the coast which runs from the present boundary of Dublin City to the present boundary of the Howth Urban District, and behind that coastline to take in land running practically up to the railway as defined in the townlands mentioned there. That extends the boundary of Dublin right up to meet the boundary of Howth Urban District. It brings the whole of the coast under urban control. It brings the whole of the road from Dublin to Howth either under the control of Dublin City or of Howth Urban District. It somewhat closely follows the lines laid down by the Greater Dublin Commission Report on that part of the country that has formed a sort of corridor between Dublin City and the area now talked about as the north coastal borough. At any rate, it brings Dublin City in the most satisfactory way into direct touch with Howth.
As Deputies will remark, the Bill provides for the extension of Howth Urban District by the simple procedure of provisional order. It also makes provision for the extension of the city boundary by provisional order. I am satisfied that if there is to be any further urbanisation of that area, it will be urbanisation by the city rather than by Howth, because while the Howth people were quite satisfied and were prepared to link up with the city, to extend the Howth urban area to take in the corridor, they were not satisfied to go north of that, because they pointed out that they had no connection whatever with the people in Malahide area. Under the amendments arising out of the discussion we had on the Committee Stage, which are also being inserted here, we are making provision by which, inside five years' and ten years' time, there will be an examination of the whole situation of Dublin City by a tribunal. That tribunal will consider what additional areas should be taken in, what additional change of boundaries of any kind is advisable, and will consider general financial and administrative matters bearing on the better administration of the whole of the City of Dublin and the area surrounding it. In the meantime, I think that the City Council, looking outside the city as to the duties and responsibilities it has to face outside the city, because of the amount of services it can control, and because of the amenities it expects to a certain extent in return from the surrounding areas, can much more satisfactorily examine the situation and come to a conclusion whether they should extend the city boundary out there in the interests of the people.
To do what Deputy Lemass proposes to do, to join up Baldoyle and Malahide with Howth in order to provide certain services for the people there, and to look somewhere else for someone else to provide the money to pay for these services is, I think, wrong and can only lead to sectional interests operating inside the boundaries of our local government units. Our local government units should be so set out as regards area that there can be a unifying interest inside and that no interest will be placed in a position in which it can argue that its interests are being neglected. To throw the rural area which stretches from Kilbarrack to Baldoyle, and from Baldoyle to Malahide, into the jurisdiction of Howth Council, which finds it difficult enough to manage its own affairs, will only create confusion, want of efficiency, and want of harmony in the general local government of that area.
So that if Deputies will consider the matter, given that Howth is extended, that the city is now extended to meet Howth, and they are brought into closer connection in that particular way, that you have a periodic review of the general position in the area, you may say of the City and County of Dublin that there is no more satisfactory way of examining all the problems that exist and preparing the means for the solution of these problems than in the machinery proposed in the Bill already and in the amendments arising out of the discussion which are now on the Order Paper.
My prejudice is rather against a coastal borough. I am willing to withdraw my opposition to the borough if that is the only solution that can be found for the problems on the north side of the city. I do not think the Minister realises the serious problem that the summer settlement at Portmarnock is becoming. I was living in that neighbourhood last summer for some weeks and I was surprised at the population there and the numbers that go there on Sundays. I think there is a possibility that what some of the alarmists say may come true and that an epidemic may start there. In any event, there is always a grave possibility of it. Then there is the extraordinary chaotic state of the roads. Part of the coast road had to be shut up. I do not think it is open yet; in any event, it was not some weeks ago. The access to Portmarnock and Malahide, especially for buses, is not only difficult, but absolutely dangerous in parts.
There are serious problems on the north side of the city. I do not think we can deal with them in this Bill, but we ought not to delay dealing with them. I am glad that the corridor is being brought in. That means, I presume, that that portion of the coast road that the Tramways Company have closed will be opened again and widened and made a proper motor road. It was extraordinary in the neighbourhood of a great city that a road of that sort could be closed. At present I believe the trams running out to Howth do not pay way-leave there, although they occupy half the road. The whole problem of the motor traffic through the north side of the city is a very serious one. As I say, I have an open mind with rather a prejudice against the coastal borough, but I realise that there are some problems of great urgency on the north side of the city for which we should endeavour to find a solution immediately. From the sanitary and traffic point of view, I think the argument of population on which the Minister based his case does not hold. The summer population is utterly out of proportion to the winter population. I think it means a thousand-fold increase.
The Minister mentioned that he is now prepared to bring in the corridor which runs at the back of Raheny until it joins that part of the Howth Urban District. I understand he is also bringing in Artane and Coolock. Would he not be prepared to go a little further and think of bringing in Baldoyle, if he cannot accept the northern borough idea?
There are one or two points in the Minister's statement I should like to comment upon. He referred to the fact that there were only two persons to every three acres in the rural part of the proposed borough area.
If you take the whole area, including Malahide and Baldoyle.
And Howth?
I am talking of the area which the Deputy wants to add.
I am talking of the part at present under the jurisdiction of the county council. As Deputy Alton has pointed out, these figures relate only to the permanent population and not to the summer population, which is far the biggest problem in the area. I think it could be said that in certain of the added rural areas which are now going to be included in the city the population is not any denser than in the rural areas which it is proposed to add to Howth. That fact is really not an argument against the borough because what we have to take into consideration is not the existing population of the area, but what that population would be in a very short time if water and sewerage facilities were available. I do not think that the establishment of a northern borough is the ideal solution of the problem that exists. The best solution of all suggested would be to bring these areas into the city and allow the city to control their development. But I do think that facilities should be given for the development of the urbanisation of these areas, because the movement is in that direction and it is a movement that should be encouraged. We want to try and spread out the city because it makes for the health of the people, and if the absence of water and sewerage facilities continues in that district there will be a permanent impediment to development. The growth of the population in the district is somewhat greater than would be indicated by the figures relating to housing which the Minister quoted. There have been, I think, more than thirty-four houses built in that area since 1926.
I should like to be clear on that. The figures I quoted were for that part of the Balrothery rural area that the Deputy wanted to bring in; that is exclusive of the corridor I am bringing in. That is typical of the area around the back of Baldoyle, which is a very small area.
Since 1926, as the Minister knows, the facilities for rapid transit between the city and these areas have been increased very considerably by the coming of the omnibus, which has helped to speed up the tendency to spread out the population of the city over the surrounding urban areas. The Dáil has decided that the southern borough is to be established. It is very likely that the northward movement of population will be into the district which it is proposed should be included in this northern borough, or which I would prefer should be included in the city. It certainly is going to be towards Malahide, Baldoyle and Portmarnock, if facilities can be provided there. It is in order to ensure that some machinery will be set up to provide these facilities that the advocates of this northern borough have been agitating or that a case has been put forward for the inclusion of the district in the city. I think it is unlikely that these facilities will be provided if these districts continue to be controlled by the county council. The Minister, I am sure, is of the same opinion. I have no doubt, if the Bill goes through in its present form, without any extra provision being made for those districts, we shall have an agitation for the inclusion of one and all of them in the city within a year or two. I cannot see what case can be made against their inclusion, other than the fact that it may mean that the ratepayers of Dublin may have to pay for the development of these areas. In my opinion, it would be good policy for the ratepayers of Dublin to pay for the development of the areas and to pay for their development in the very near future. I am not pressing the amendment.
I quite realise that it might be good policy for the citizens of Dublin to pay for the development of these areas. I almost believe it would, but we must make our plans now, not on the complete vision that persons interested in development around the City of Dublin have placed before us; rather we must base our plans on the facts of the city and on the facts of the development of the area around it. I asked Deputies before to realise that we were adding to the old city of 8,300 acres a rural area of 5,300 acres.
Acreage does not matter.
It matters a lot when you have to bring through it drainage pipes, water pipes and road services. You could easily do that too rapidly and you could easily do too much of the joining-up of rural areas to the City of Dublin.
Does not the Minister know that as far as water pipes are concerned, they have them in Malahide and Portmarnock and that the only place they have not got them is Baldoyle?
They have sewerage pipes but no water pipes there.
It is not because an omnibus can bring persons from Dublin to a particular place easily and rapidly that it is as easy to bring water pipes or sewerage pipes to that place.
The water pipe is there already. It passes through the place.
We are taking into the city 5,300 acres of rural area. When the city consolidates itself, with its new machinery of management and new jointed together areas, the council can be relied upon to take cognisance of those problems in which Deputies and others are interested. As far as a lot of popular opinion in these areas is concerned, I would ask Deputies to realise that a lot of popular opinion about the formation of boroughs to the North of Dublin was imported opinion. A number of those who went out there to make popular opinion like that folded up some of their resolutions and left.
It is local opinion of which I am speaking.
The Dublin Council will be in a much more satisfactory position, and will have much more machinery at hand than Deputies have to see what popular opinion is, to see what the problem is and to work out a solution of it.
I should like to say, lest there be any misunderstanding, that Deputy Lemass and I differ considerably on this matter. I am quite glad that the matter has been discussed. I am at one with him in thinking that it is well that the matter has been raised and threshed out. I was very glad to hear the Minister's views on the question, and I believe the Dáil would, if the matter were put to a vote, be in favour of the Minister's proposition as against this amendment, which would not be a solution.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 3:—
In page 6, to add at the end of Section 5 a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) The abolition of an abolished body shall not invalidate or affect any paying order which may have been issued by such abolished body and not presented for payment before the appointed day, nor any authority given by such abolished body for the payment of the amount of such paying order, and the successor of such abolished body shall make arrangements for the payment of the amount of every such paying order upon due presentation within a reasonable time after the appointed day."
The aim of this amendment is simply to secure that a paying order issued by one of the abolished bodies and presented after the abolition of that body will not be refused payment by the bank, but that the successors to the abolished body will pay the amount.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 4:—
In page 7, to add at the end of Section 8 a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) No bye-law, rule, or regulation in force in the Existing City immediately before the appointed day shall apply or be extended to the area of an added urban district merely by virtue of the inclusion of such area in the City by this Act, but the City Council may at any time by resolution extend and apply any such bye-law, rule, or regulation to the area of either or both of the added urban districts, and, upon any such extension being so made, any bye-law, rule, or regulation continued in force in such area by this section which is inconsistent with the bye-law, rule, or regulation so extended shall cease to have effect in such area."
Some of the city bye-laws are so framed that it might be thought they would apply automatically to the extended city. It is intended by this amendment to make clear that the bye-laws existing in the different parts of the added city will remain as they are until formal action is taken to change them.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 5:—
In page 11, to add at the end of Section 20 a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) No bye-law, rule, or regulation in force in the Existing City immediately before the appointed day shall apply or be extended to the added rural area merely by virtue of the inclusion of such area in the City by this Act, but the City Council may at any time by resolution extend and apply any such bye-law, rule, or regulation to the added rural area, and, upon any such extension being so made, any bye-law, rule, or regulation continued in force in such area by this section which is inconsistent with the bye-law, rule, or regulation so extended shall cease to have effect in such area."
This amendment is analogous to amendment No. 4, but it refers to the rural added areas.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 6:—
In page 12, section 22 (3), line 13, and also line 18, after the word "under-sheriff" to insert the words "or county registrar (as the case may require)."
The office of under-sheriff is now abolished except in Dublin city and county. Automatically, on the cesser of office of under-sheriff in either the city or county, the county registrar will take up his duties. This amendment is merely a drafting amendment to make sure of that position.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 7:—
In page 12, to add at the end of section 22 a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) The following provisions shall have effect in the City and the County in relation to the preparation of jurors books, the preparation of panels of jurors, and the summoning of jurors, and in relation to the panels from which jurors are to be drawn for the trial of issues by a Court or a Judge sitting in the City or the County, that is to say:—
(a) until the 1st day of April, 1931, and thereafter until either the jurors book in force on that day in the Existing City or the jurors book in force on that day in the County (including the added urban districts and the added rural area) becomes exhausted, the law in force immediately before the passing of this Act shall continue in force and be observed as if this Act, and in particular the foregoing sub-section of this section and the provisions extending the boundaries of the City, had not been passed, and
(b) when and so soon as one of the said jurors books becomes exhausted after the 1st day of April, 1931, the other of the said jurors books shall be deemed to have become exhausted and new jurors books shall forthwith come into force in the City and the County, and
(c) notwithstanding anything contained in this sub-section, one of such new jurors books shall be prepared as a jurors book for the City as extended by this Act, and the other of such new jurors books shall be prepared as a jurors book for the County, exclusive of the added urban districts and the added rural area, and
(d) immediately upon such new jurors books coming into force the provisions of this Act shall have effect and thenceforward be observed, save that so long as there is an under-sheriff for the City such under-sheriff shall be the empanelling officer within the meaning of the Juries Act, 1927 (No. 23 of 1927), for the whole City as extended by this Act, and so long as there is an under-sheriff for the County such under-sheriff shall be the empanelling officer within the meaning aforesaid for so much only of the County as is not included in the City by this Act."
This is a drafting amendment to cover the position affecting jurors books. A jurors book expires when the whole book has been gone through. The jurors books which will operate until one or other of the present jurors books has expired will not be in accordance with the new area. The amendment provides that when one or other of the present jurors books expires, new jurors books will be prepared for both the city and county.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 8:—
In page 13, section 24 (1), line 22, to delete the words "or by" where they firstly occur and substitute the words "the Board of Health," and to delete the word "by," line 22, where the word thirdly occurs, and in line 25 to delete the word "or" where it firstly occurs and substitute the words "the Board of Health."
This is a drafting amendment to ensure, under the proposal that gives credit to an employee of the city corporation for the service given under the county council, that, when in fact, an officer is transferred from the county council to the board of health and subsequently to the city, the continuity of the service will not be broken.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 9:—
In page 16, section 29, before sub-section (8), to insert a new sub-section as follows:
"(8) All powers, functions, and duties vested by statute in the Lord Mayor in relation to any market, whether as clerk of the markets or otherwise, shall, as on and from the appointed day, become and be powers, functions, and duties of the City Corporation."
In some very old statutes certain powers, functions and duties are vested in the Lord Mayor as Clerk of the Markets. This amendment is designed to vest these powers in the Corporation. Such of these powers, then, as come under the head of "reserved functions" will be discharged by the council and the other powers will be discharged by the manager.
That explanation sounds very innocent, but would the Minister tell us exactly what the powers, functions and duties referred to are, because I do not think any of them are mentioned in the reserved functions? In fact, the amendment will mean that these functions, powers and duties will be discharged by the manager.
Not necessarily. There is the application of by-laws to prevent fraud in connection with hay, straw, and matters of that sort in the market. It is quite possible that some of these powers will be exercisable by the council, because they deal with all sorts of miscellaneous duties in very old phraseology. In so far as staffs are dealt with, they will be controlled by the manager, but in so far as the application or framing of by-laws for preventing fraud in connection with the weighing of commodities is concerned, they will be the functions of the council, in so far as they come within the terms of the reserved functions.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
I beg to move amendment No. 10:—
In page 16, Section 30 (1), lines 49 and 50, to delete the words "Local Government" and to substitute the word "Dáil."
This amendment is to provide that in the election of the ordinary members of the City Council there shall be a manhood franchise. In other words, that the Dáil register and not the local government register will be used. There is a property qualification for the possession and exercise of a local government vote at present. It is, of course, a very slight qualification. Any person who is in occupation of rateable premises is entitled to be registered as a local government voter. I think I am correct in saying that the wife of the occupier of rateable premises is also entitled to exercise a local government vote if she is over 30 years of age. I do not know what case exists for the maintenance of a separate local government register at all, because it seems that any purpose that may have been served at one time by the restriction of the vote in municipal affairs to a certain section of the people, is not now being served, and that it would in fact be better to have the Dáil register used as in the case of the election of Deputies to this House. In the special case of the Dublin City Council an argument can be advanced for the use of the Dáil register in the election of ordinary members that would not apply in other areas. The Dáil has agreed to the insertion of a section in the Bill to provide for the establishment of a commercial register, and for the election of five members of the council by voters whose names are inscribed on the commercial register alone. In so far therefore as it is necessary to protect the interests of the owners of property — and I do not think it is necessary to protect their interests at all — steps have been taken to do so by the provisions relating to the commercial register and the commercial members of the City Council. As the Dáil has approved of that reactionary step, this amendment is designed to ask them to balance the account by moving now in the opposite direction in relation to the election of the ordinary members, and to institute, for the first time in this country, the principle of manhood suffrage in elections for local government bodies. A lot of the hostility to the City Council, which may be occasioned by the provision relating to the commercial register, would be removed if that step were taken. I do not think it can be argued that the results of the election of ordinary members are likely to be any different. As a rule, anybody can vote in a municipal election in Dublin, whether he is on the register or not. In fact municipal elections in Dublin were noted for that. Whether under the new order there will be any——
That will be entirely changed under the new order.
There may be a change but I doubt if the Minister for Local Government and Public Health has yet devised a means of preventing that particular form of illegality. In any case the number of people who are excluded from the local government register are not very many. The Minister will probably inform us what is the exact number of local government voters and of Dáil voters in the register of electors for the City of Dublin. I think the Minister will find that there cannot be a very substantial difference, and the necessity for maintaining a separate register of local government electors can be ended without risking any serious upset in the existing arrangements. The only case that can be made for the maintenance of the slight property qualifications that now exist is the fact that certain members of the Chamber of Commerce are rather timorous of democracy. Their fears have been met in a large measure by the commercial register and they can now risk the possibility of a person who owns no property being elected to the City Council as a result of the passage of this amendment. I ask the Dáil to accept it.
Members of this party will, if the Minister insists on this amendment going to a division, vote for it. It is sound in principle and it represents a forward policy as against the very reactionary policy contained in the Bill and maintained by the Minister. The Minister's policy is to go backwards, and in local government affairs, separate the rich from the poor. This amendment is a considerable improvement on that. I hoped that Deputy Lemass, in moving this amendment, would take the necessary steps to see that it was extended to all other local authorities in the State.
The amendment is out of order, but the Chair is allowing it.
It is a new principle to divorce the representation under the local government from the basis on which it is framed.
You have done that already.
No; on the contrary we are rectifying the defect in the present arrangement by which certain people, although they paid rates for property they occupy, had no representation as local government electors for these rates.
Mr. O'Connell
The Minister did a lot more than that.
We are doing nothing but that.
What about the commercial members?
Mr. O'Connell
They are getting more than double.
No, you are giving them about .00 something.
You are giving some men six votes.
The Deputy will remember that when I introduced the special franchise idea into this, I gave figures to the Dáil which showed that half of the rateable property upon which rates are raised in the City of Dublin was not represented by Local Government electors for the reason that the people who paid these rates had not a Local Government vote in respect of these premises.
Are those the grounds for giving six votes to one man?
They are not the grounds for giving six votes to one man, and there is no proposal to give six votes to one man.
Yes, there is.
There is such a proposal, certainly.
The Deputy's proposal is to divorce the Local Government voter from shouldering the burden for the cost of local government, and, in spite of Deputy Davin's statement that he is going to go into the Lobby against me, I will be obliged to divide on this amendment.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
Might I point out that the Minister has an amendment down, of which I approve, to remove the necessity for a candidate for election to be registered as a Local Government voter in the city? In fact, a person with no property can be elected on the City Council.
Only by the consent of the responsible people.
The Minister has in that one word given us the key to what is in his mind. A responsible person is one who owns property.
No, but a person who pays rates.
There are several people entitled under the existing law to be on the register of Local Government voters, and yet pay no rates.
Only a fringe.
No. I will go so far as to say that almost 50 per cent. of those registered as local government electors do not pay rates.
I would like to hear that argument developed.
They are in occupation of rateable premises and the landlord or the owner of those premises is responsible for the rates. I think the Minister will find that that is the case. As far as I know, there will be only 4,000 people on the commercial register and these will have the election of five members of the Council. As against that undemocratic proposal, which the Minister has defended, I think he should agree to go a step in the opposite direction in order that the account might be balanced. Persons who are not on the register and who are not natives of the city can be elected as members of the Council. Persons who pay no rates can vote for them under the existing law. The acceptance of this amendment will merely provide that individuals such as lodgers occupying rooms in which they do not own the furniture, or domestic servants in private dwelling houses, will have votes in municipal affairs as they have at present in the much more important elections relating to this House. Can the Minister give us comparative figures so that we can understand the additional number of voters who would have a voice in the election of the municipal council if this amendment were carried? I would like him to give us the number of people in the city registered as Dáil and local government electors so that we can compare the two.
Can the Minister explain his statement that no person can have six votes under Section 34 of the Bill?
A person can get six votes based upon the occupation of a certain amount of rateable property.
Six votes for one man?
Yes, on the commercial register. I question very much if there is any single man who will get six votes. A person in the shape of a company will get six votes, but I have no information that will show me that any one man is in the position of being the owner of a business with the rateable property occupied by him at the value that will entitle him to six votes. On the question raised by Deputy Lemass, the number of local government electors in the old City of Dublin was 108,914. I have not the statistics with regard to the Dáil electorate, but I think the relation would be about two-thirds. I think the number of Dáil electors in the old City of Dublin would be greater than 160,000.
Has the Minister any information regarding the number of those whose names are already on the commercial register, which he has admitted he is already preparing, showing the valuation of the property which these individuals hold? Does the Minister deny that there are not amongst the individuals on the commercial register persons who would own property over a valuation of £50 and therefore would get more than one vote?
But the Deputy was talking of six votes for one man.
Yes, if they had valuations up to £250.
Deputy Lemass said there would be approximately 4,000 voters on the basis of the old City register with new additions in respect of the additional classes that we provide for in connection with the commercial register. The estimated number of electors on it would probably be about 7,000. I would remind Deputies that the total valuation for the old City of Dublin was £1,250,000 and the total amount of valuation represented by the electors on the commercial register would be £628,000.
Nothing more than unpaid rate collectors.
Exactly. Are we discussing Section 34 now?
We are not.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Maguire, Ben.
- McEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- Wolfe, George.
Tellers — Tá: Deputies Allen and Killilea; Níl: Deputies P. S. Doyle and Duggan.
Amendment declared lost.
I move:—
In page 16, Section 31 (2), to delete all words after the word "elections," line 59, to the end of the sub-section.
This amendment speaks for itself. It is to try, so far as we can, to eliminate plural voting, and that is a proposition which, in a democratic assembly like this, should not need much argument to recommend it.
I do not know if even removing this would have the effect of achieving what Deputy O'Kelly wants. In any case it would be easy to avoid it, because most of the property we are concerned with here are companies, and the arrangement by which voting will be carried on by companies will be dealt with under the machinery that will be before the House as soon as we finish with this. But in introducing the principle of a franchise in respect to the occupation of property for commercial or manufacturing purposes, I am not prepared to accept an amendment which will prevent a person who happens to be living in the city and has a local government vote by reason of that fact, from having his vote in respect of premises which he occupies and which he pays rates for, in respect of manufacture or commerce, and I oppose the amendment.
Is it the Minister's contention that a person owning property which qualifies him to have six votes, would suffer a hardship if he were also deprived of the seventh vote which he gets as an ordinary citizen? That is the purport of the amendment. If the Minister is going to give special facilities to the owners of property to such an extent that 1,000 odd would be able to elect one member of the Council, that is one commercial member of the Council, surely it is not asking too much that these same individuals should be deprived of the right to influence the elections of ordinary members. The facilities that are being given are almost as great as those given to persons registered on a university register which, like the commercial register, should be abolished. The point is, however, that the individuals concerned cannot possibly claim that they are being deprived of the opportunity of determining who shall, or shall not, be a member of the City Council. Every person whose name is on the commercial register will in fact be able to influence membership of the Council to an extent which the ordinary citizen cannot do; to limit his voting powers to the extent which he will hold them on a commercial register, is an act of elementary justice, and I ask the Dáil, therefore, and the Minister, to accept this amendment.
I suggest it would be an act of elementary injustice that because a person was resident in the city and paid his rates as an ordinary person resident in the city, that he should be excluded because of that fact from casting his vote in the election of members of the commercial community to represent the commercial side of things in the city, whereas if he lived outside the city he would not be so prevented.
He would not be prevented; he would have six votes.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Allen and Killilea; Níl, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment 12:—
In page 17, Section 31, before sub-section (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"Sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall not apply in respect of elections of members of the City Council."
I undertook to introduce an amendment that would enable a person to be elected a member of the council, even though he was not a Local Government elector. This amendment is intended to give effect to that promise.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 13:—
In page 17, Section 32, to insert before sub-section (2) the following new sub-section:—
"An Order made by the Minister under this section shall not come into operation until it has been approved by resolution of Dáil Eireann authorising the said Order with or without amendment."
I think it will be necessary, when the Minister comes to define and delimit the areas, that he shall make an Order. The object of the amendment is that before this Order will come into operation it shall be laid before the Oireachtas, or, at any rate, that the House shall have an opportunity, if it thinks it desirable to do so, to discuss the matter. It is quite possible that there may be a serious difference of opinion as to the delimitation of the areas. If there were such differences of opinion, I think it is only right and proper that this House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the Order the Minister makes.
I propose to place the responsibility on the Minister of dividing the city into five areas, equal representation being given throughout the city on the basis of population. Under the 1919 and the 1925 Acts the Minister is called upon to divide counties into electoral areas. The Minister issues the necessary Order in connection with that matter. I see no reason why Dublin City should be put into a different position to that of the counties. If the division of the city is not satisfactory to the City Council, then the City Council is in the same position as a county council in the matter of making representations. These representations, no doubt, will be taken into consideration by the Minister. If we had an arrangement by which all these Orders had to be placed before the Oireachtas, we would be placed in the position in which it could be shown that there was no reason why Orders relating to the City of Dublin should be placed before the Oireachtas, and not Orders relating to other areas under county councils. If the Deputy would see the matter in that light, that is doing in regard to Dublin in this matter what the Minister for Local Government has to do in respect of every county council, he would probably agree that there is no reason why this Order should be placed before the Oireachtas, because the Oireachtas is hardly the proper body to express a view on the matter. Any view expressed by the City Council would be fully considered by the Minister.
I do not think there is any real comparison possible between the area of a county council and the area of the proposed city council under this Bill. In the first place anything suggestive of jerrymandering would be impossible in a county. The county electoral areas must be convenient groupings of the electoral areas of a district. In a city, however, any division almost is possible and can be justified. We do know that persons of particular political opinions do reside in compact communities, more or less, in the city, and can be given, possibly, undue representation if there was any desire or any intention on the part of the Department of Local Government to use the Orders given by this Bill for jerrymandering purposes. I do not suggest that the Department has any such intention in mind, but I do not think that the Dáil should willingly agree to a proposal enabling electoral areas of this kind to be defined by Order in the city of Dublin. That is a power which the Dáil should keep in its own hands and it is for that purpose that the amendment has been moved.
This matter is of particular interest to the city of Dublin because there is the possibility, if not the probability, that the electoral areas established under this Bill will become parliamentary constituencies in the near future. The parliamentary constituencies of the city of Dublin have to be revised, their boundaries altered and possibly new constituencies established. It is not at all unlikely that the electoral areas for the purposes of municipal elections will be the parliamentary constituencies for the purposes of Dáil elections. We do not want to put ourselves in the position of agreeing to the establishment of electoral areas by Order, and then find the existence of these electoral areas used as an argument in favour of particular parliamentary constituencies when the Bill to revise the parliamentary constituencies is submitted.
The Minister has really not given any argument against the amendment. The acceptance of the amendment will not cause any inconvenience to his Department, nor will it involve any prolonged discussions in the Dáil to have Orders defining electoral areas submitted to the House for approval. If the Minister is not prepared to submit these Orders for approval, he could at least follow the procedure adopted in the State Lands Act under which Orders are tabled and do not come into force for a number of days, during which period a Deputy can table a motion for the alteration or withdrawal of the particular Order in question if he is dissatisfied with the contents of it. In our opinion, some machinery should be set up which would give the Dáil the ultimate decision as to what areas shall be electoral areas under this Bill. We do not think that matter should be left in the sole discretion of the Minister.
I do not think the Dáil should be called on to decide whether Botanic Avenue, Glasnevin Road or Cabra Road should be a dividing line in electoral divisions for local government purposes in the city of Dublin. I do not see that it is desirable to introduce the principle that the Dáil would be committed in any way to the line upon which electoral areas for local government bodies are divided. If there is any charge of misconduct of any kind in connection with the discharge of the Minister's duties relating to the Electoral Acts generally for local government and for other purposes, the Dáil has the opportunity of dealing with that on a motion, but I am not prepared to agree that those Orders should come before the Oireachtas, and neither am I prepared to agree to the suggestion that electoral divisions for local government purposes should necessarily have any relation to electoral divisions for Dáil purposes.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move:—
In page 18, section 33 (2), line 16, to delete the word "twenty" and substitute the word "ten."
My purpose is to alter this scheme so that it will do the least possible harm from my point of view, and for that purpose I propose to widen the basis. Making the valuation £10 instead of £20 would widen the basis very considerably, and the object the Minister has in view in proposing this scheme would, to a large extent, be nullified. All of us on those benches are definitely against the proposition in section 33 — against the commercial register. That has already been decided by the House. The Dáil has adopted the commercial register in principle and this amendment — it is just as well to be blunt about it—is to nullify as far as we can the harm that would be done if the Minister's proposal is put into operation.
I am glad to know the amendment is intended to nullify the commercial register. What I thought the Deputy had in mind was a hawker's licence when he put down a valuation figure of £10. I cannot see that the occupation of a house to the valuation of £10 for business purposes can be regarded as a satisfactory basis to provide us with what we are looking for, and that is expert business representation in the city council. Business premises with a valuation of £10 can hardly be called a business premises at all. I oppose the amendment.
Surely the Minister does not contend that those who will go on the commercial register under this Bill will be persons who can claim to be business experts. The number of premises of not less than £20 valuation is not inconsiderable, and the purpose of the amendment is to provide that anybody who is engaged in business will be entitled to have a vote in the election of commercial members to the council. It seems to me that the amendment is in line with the Minister's own policy. If we had our way there would be no commercial register, but as the Dáil has decided that there will be a commercial register then the purpose of the Dáil should be to ensure that every person engaged in business should be recorded on that register and have a vote for the election of members. It is quite possible that the occupier of premises valued at £10 or £12 might be engaged in a much more profitable enterprise than the occupier of premises valued at £20 or £25. The amendment is a perfectly reasonable one and the Minister should be prepared to accept it if he is really anxious to ensure that the commercial members of the council will be able to speak with some degree of authority for the commercial interests of the City of Dublin.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move:—
In page 18, section 33 (2), to delete all words after the word "any," line 22, to the end of line 24, and substitute the words "manufacturing enterprise."
The Bill provides that any premises occupied by any "individual, partnership, unincorporated association, or corporate body wholly or partly for the purpose of carrying on therein any business, profession, trade, manufacture, or other commercial or industrial pursuit," shall be registered on the commercial register and be given special facilities in the election of members to the council. The Minister has informed us that this commercial register scheme has been devised to ensure that commercial interests will not be neglected by the city council, and that there will be certain members of that body authorised and competent to speak for those engaged in trade and commerce in the city. He therefore proposes to give votes to the proprietors of beauty parlours, bookmakers, mock-auctioneers and quack doctors, or to anybody engaged in any conceivable form of remunerative enterprise who occupies premises in Dublin with a valuation of £20 or more. It is presumed these people will elect business experts who are to provide for the proper government of the City of Dublin under the Minister's scheme. My amendment seeks to limit registration on the commercial register to those who are engaged in manufacturing enterprises. There is a case to be made for giving special representation to Irish manufacturers on local government bodies, but there is no case whatever to be made for giving special representation to those engaged in enterprises of the kind I have just mentioned, who give no benefit to the community and who have no interest in the city except the profit that they make out of it.
The manufacturer is anchored to the spot, as it were, and has a direct interest in the burden of rates, and in the improvement of public services in the city. It was argued by the Minister on the Committee Stage that the giving of these facilities might weigh the balance in a decision as to whether or not a manufacturing enterprise should be established here. In fact I think that was the only argument he advanced for the established of the commercial register.
It was not an argument of mine.
It was not an argument of any value. It was an argument used by the Minister. I do not say it was his.
No.
I am quite certain it was.
I am certain it was not an argument of mine.
That argument will remain valid even if this amendment is carried. I do not think any case whatever can be made for giving special facilities to persons not engaged in some enterprise that confers a benefit on the people of Dublin. The giving of these facilities to persons engaged in enterprises of all kinds is, in fact, making a mockery of the idea of special commercial representation.
Mr. Byrne
I think that is a most extraordinary doctrine for a business man like Deputy Lemass to propound—that no one is performing any services to the city except Irish manufacturers. I never heard such a doctrine proposed by any man claiming to be an economist as Deputy Lemass claims to be. I always understood that the distributor was as important, or nearly as important, as the manufacturer.
He may cost more.
Mr. Byrne
There must be a proper distribution if goods are to be sold, and if the wants of the people are to be attended to. I think it is the most ridiculous argument that I ever heard coming from the Front Opposition Bench.
Deputy Lemass would seek to make it the basis for giving a vote on the commercial franchise that the person should be a manufacturer. That is not what we seek. We say that there is a special burden of the cost of local government placed on the shoulders of a person who occupies premises for business purposes generally, as distinct from occupying them for personal use, and that is the basis for setting up this commercial register. To accept the principle put forward by Deputy Lemass would be to depart entirely from that. As Deputy Byrne stated, it would be to leave out the whole of our distributing trade, which is an important side, and which, perhaps, from the point of view of the amount of rates paid for the occupation of premises, bears a bigger burden of rates than our manufacturing industries.
But what is the case for giving them special representation?
The case is that unless they are given special representation like this they will be denied a voice in local government, for which they pay.
They have as much voice as anyone else.
The basis of local government representation is the payment of the cost of local government. The amendment proposes an entirely different basis for the commercial franchise, and I do not accept it.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move:—
In page 18, section 33 (4), line 41, to delete the words "two or more premises" and substitute the words "one premises only."
If an individual, a partnership or a company, as the case may be, is to get representation, such representation should be restricted to their headquarters, wherever they are. If a company or individual has two, three or four branches in the city it should be sufficient that that company or individual would have a vote in respect of where the headquarters and the registered offices are. To take into account every establishment of one kind or another in different parts of the city, and to add together the valuation of these rated premises, is carrying this principle too far. I think it is unjust to the other voters. I do not see any case whatever for it. If there is a case for giving votes to an incorporated body, or to an individual with business premises, whether manufacturing or distributing premises, who are rated out of these premises, and who otherwise have not a vote, I think that a case can be made for, perhaps, giving such persons or person a vote out of the registered offices. But to add together valuations of all the premises they might have an interest in or own, or be the rated occupiers, and to give five or six votes is carrying this proposal of the commercial register to a limit that we ought not vote for.
Mr. Byrne
I think Deputy O'Kelly's amendment would be more injurious as far as the democratic aspect of the case is concerned than perhaps appears to him. I happen to have more than one business premises, and I know a great many other ordinary individuals in the same position.
That is not an argument in favour of it.
Mr. Byrne
These men can be pretty well relied upon to keep up the national end of the question, which is an aspect of it that has been stressed. It has been said that under this proposal we are giving representation to non-nationals. Small business men will always have a decidedly national outlook, and their votes will be cast in the national interests of the city. The amendment would prevent these votes functioning as effectually as they will under the Bill as it stands. I cannot see why on the basis of taxation a man should not be entitled to proportional representation. It seems absurd that if a man has two business premises he should not have a vote for each. The whole of this is founded on the basis that you cannot have any taxation without representation. That is why this proposal has been incorporated. I certainly think that it is the interest of a man with one or two business premises, say one in the north side and the other in the south side, to have a vote, not only in the north side but in the south side, and I would appeal to Deputy O'Kelly to reconsider the matter, as I think it would be in the interests of the city if he had such votes.
If Deputy O'Kelly's amendment is carried you would have the position that the occupier of premises with a valuation of £180 would have three votes, but if he occupied premises in three different parts of the city, each of £60 valuation, he would only have one vote. If you had three individuals with premises of £60 valuation in different parts and if they were amalgamated into a company the company running these three businesses would have less representation in this very restricted electorate to a fractional part of the council than if they were three separate individuals running these shops. I think that would be unjust and would be an anomoly that we could not stand for.
The question is, as the Minister stated, the number of votes a man may have and not, as Deputy Byrne pointed out, a question of taxation and representation. The minimum number of votes that anyone on the commercial register can have is two, or one more than I have.
Mr. Byrne
You are a business man just the same as myself. You will have a vote just the same as I will.
That may be so. I grant you that. But the amendment is not designed to deprive anyone of a vote. The minimum number of votes which anyone on the commercial register will have will be two. He might have 24, 30 or 36.
Mr. Byrne
Votes?
An individual occupying five premises, each of which would be valued at not less than £250, could have thirty votes.
Not at all.
Why could he not? An individual may have a vote on the commercial register in respect of two or more premises. If he has five premises, valued at £250 each, he has six votes in respect of each of them.
Oh, no.
What section of the Bill says he has not?
Would the Deputy point out what section says that he has?
Mr. Byrne
The maximum number of votes is six.
"At an election of commercial members of the city council, each person entitled to vote at such election shall have such number of votes as hereinafter stated." If his name is on the register twice he may have twice six votes, if the rateable valuation of his premises justified him having them.
Section 34 says: "if the value under the Valuation Acts of the premises in respect of which he is registered in the register of commercial electors or, where he is so registered in respect of two or more premises, the aggregate of the values under the said Acts of all the premises in respect of which he is so registered,..." where he is registered in respect of two or more.
In that case what is the necessity for this sub-section at all? It is no advantage then for the man to have his name twice on the register if the aggregate of the values of the premises in respect of which he is registered is going to entitle him to the same number of votes in any case.
If we are going to work Section 34 we must contemplate that a man may be registered for two or more premises, and we are simply stating in Section 33 that he may be so registered.
Then why need he be? That person must claim a vote on the commercial register. He puts in a claim and says: "I claim to be registered on the commercial register because I have property in the city of Dublin that has an aggregate valuation of so many pounds." His name need go on the register only once; it is not necessary for him to appear twice. It he appears twice on the register, can he be prevented from voting twice? He cannot. Obviously, the reason for putting his name there is that he may vote twice. This sub-section is unnecessary in view of Section 34.
I am not prepared to accept the Deputy's suggestion that it is unnecessary, but even if it were unnecessary, he cannot have more votes than are provided for in Section 34.
It is a question that I would like to see interpreted in a law court whether he can or cannot, because what Deputy Lemass says is perfectly correct. It appears to me that a person can apply to be registered in respect of one set of premises, the aggregate valuation of which would be £250, and can apply to be registered in a second case for another aggregate of valuations amounting to £250, and in respect of each entry would be entitled to cast six votes at an election.
I can assure the Deputy on the best advice that he would not.
I would like to hear the Minister prove that he could. I hold that Deputy Lemass's contention is a perfectly sound one, that it would be possible for a person to be registered twice in respect of two separate sets of qualifications.
The Bill provides that a person may be registered in respect of two or more premises, and that being so registered, where the aggregate of the valuation of the premises in respect of which he is registered reaches a certain figure he shall have a certain number of votes.
Will the Minister say why it is necessary that the person's name should be on the register twice if it is not proposed to let him vote twice?
I am not saying that it is necessary at all to have his name twice on the register.
Then why the sub-section?
Because the sub-section could be effective by putting down the man's name once and by putting the premises opposite. But I can assure the Deputies that there is nothing here that will allow a person to get more than the number of votes on the aggregate of the premises for which he is registered.
Has the Minister also considered the case of the multiple shops? They can be represented on the register by their managers, and in respect of each of them they would be able to cast six votes. What will be the position in regard to them?
It would apply in the case of a company owning three shops. They could possibly get more than six votes by having the managers' names registered in respect of each of them. Supposing that the valuation of each of them was £250, could they not register each of these premises in respect of the manager's name, and get six votes in respect of each?
No. If Deputies think that it will be possible to have that done, then in the machinery we will have to try to make arrangements by which it would be impossible for a company to pretend that their different shops belonged to a number of different individuals. That is a very different matter from what is here.
In any case, does the Minister not contemplate machinery by which a person will claim a vote on the commercial register in respect of property owned by him in the city area? In view of the fact that a person supporting his claim must state the property owned by him, he need only be entered once on the register. I cannot see the necessity for this sub-section. Its deletion will not interfere with the Minister's expressed intention. It would remove a doubt in my mind that, by permitting a person to be registered twice, we would be giving him power to vote twice.
The Minister understands that it is not necessary to be the proprietor of premises to be the rated occupier. It has often happened that people who are occupying certain premises merely for business purposes and perhaps paying a weekly rent for these premises are rated occupiers and have votes as such. At a time of great interest in municipal affairs it might easily happen that certain companies might desire to increase the number of their votes, and they could register the managers of their various premises in the city as rated occupiers, and secure duplication or triplication of the number of votes that would otherwise be available to them. That is what we want to avoid.
This would not prevent them if people wanted to do it. What I want to secure is that a person whose company may be registered in respect of two or more premises, and being so registered, on the aggregate of valuation, will have a certain number of votes. I secure that here.
Is the Minister sure of that? I think that the draftsman is at fault. It would, I think, be clear if the section was worded so as to read: "An individual who is registered once in respect of two or more premises." The Minister should consult the draftsman about it.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move:—
In page 18, Section 33, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(7) Only one individual shall be entitled to vote in respect of any one set of premises whether the said premises are in the rated occupation of an individual, partnership, un-incorporated association or corporate body.
I think that this amendment is more or less in the same position as the previous one and if there is any point in it, it arises on the machinery of the Bill.
It was pointed out to me that in the case of a partnership, of property being registered in the names of two, three or more persons who jointly hold such property, there is no machinery to decide who would vote and that four people could, in fact, vote. It is to avoid giving two, three, or more persons votes, as they might be given if the Bill stands as it is, that the amendment is put down. Cases of that kind have occurred. Cases have been brought under my notice that occurred under Acts that no longer operate but which were in operation prior to the Local Government Act of 1898, certain franchise laws under which people claimed successfully that they were joint owners of property and had power to vote.
As the Bill stands, I do not think that it would be possible for a company to vote in that way. The machinery of the Bill will say what steps will have to be taken by which a company can vote.
Will the Minister see that that point will be covered?
Certainly.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
I move:—
"In page 19, Section 34, to delete sub-section (2) (d)."
We are anxious that whatever voting is to be done in the way suggested, should be done by the authorised person going to the polling booth and casting his vote in the ordinary way. If a person is authorised by a company or an incorporated body to vote, he should go to the polling booth and cast his vote the same as anyone else. We do not see why people who are given such great privileges under the commercial register should be given the additional privilege of voting by post. It could easily be arranged to have in every polling booth places for people who are on the commercial register to record their votes. That would probably be less costly than the proposed arrangement. It is a principle for which we certainly are not inclined to vote. We think that those who are given the privilege of being on the commercial register should be put to the trouble of going to the poll and casting their votes. If their vote is of such great value they should not object to doing that.
We think that there is no special virtue in putting people to trouble. This system will convenience the electors on the commercial register and will be cheaper. I am sure that the cost of providing separate ballot boxes and so forth for people on this register would be much greater than carrying out the ballot by post. Thus we save costs in the matter and convenience the electors. For these reasons I feel that postal voting on this small register should be allowed to stand.
If the principal reason for introducing this extraordinary proposal in relation to municipal elections is to meet the convenience of those whose names are on the commercial register, why not extend it to the general mass of the people? Why not permit everyone to vote by post? I am perfectly certain that the Minister would secure greater economy in that way than by conceding the privilege only in relation to commercial electors. I put it in another way. The Minister's contention is that these interests, because of the amount of rates they pay, are entitled to special representation in the Corporation. Let us see what value they attach to that. Does the Minister think that their interest in civic affairs is so slight that in order to induce them to cast their votes—even the six votes which the Minister gives them—and to exercise the undue influence in municipal matters, which under this Bill they will have attached to them, he is justified in granting them this special concession in regard to the special register and plural voting? I think that the argument put forward by the Minister in regard to postal voting is an argument against the whole commercial register. The least that might be expected of these people, who are granted special concessions and given undue influence in municipal affairs, is to give the same earnest of their interest in municipal life as the Minister exacts from the ordinary commonplace elector and ask them, like ordinary electors, to walk to the polling booth.
The Minister's proposal in this matter is a further evidence, if such evidence were needed, that he is creating a special privileged class. These postal voters are a very privileged class, and he will not ask such superior beings to walk like ordinary individuals to the polling booth. The objection, I suppose, that would be urged against making postal voting universal would be that such a system would be liable to abuse or that it would be impossible to keep a proper check on voting papers, etc. These special people, however, are so superior that the idea of their abusing the franchise would not enter into the Minister's mind. They are a privileged class who cannot be expected to go and register their votes like ordinary people. That is certainly in accordance with the whole idea underlying this proposed commercial register which creates a privileged class. The Minister may argue that because such people have not this representation already they are entitled to this commercial register. That, however, does not come in here. If there is anything good in the idea of postal voting it ought to be as good for the ordinary elector as for the commercial elector. There is no argument, so far as I can see, to justify differentiation of treatment in this manner of voting between a voter on the commercial register and an ordinary voter who has to cast his vote in the polling booth.
You have either to provide special ballot boxes at all the places where polling is taking place and provide registers there, or you have to confine the commercial electors to a smaller number of polling booths. That is, you have to add to the present difficulties of getting polling booths.
A Deputy
They can all vote together.
You would give this additional trouble to the voters on the commercial register which ordinary voters have and you would also be entering into a certain amount of unnecessary expense in providing boxes and printing registers. You would have to provide ballot boxes for them at each of the stations at considerable expense.
What about providing different coloured ballot papers?
Or you can provide postal voting under which the electorate will be convenienced and expenses spared. I am not prepared to say now whether I have examined postal voting as compared with the present system to see whether it might not be in the general interests of the people, and convenience all the electorate to change the whole system. I do not think, however, that that arises now. What does arise is this: whether this is a simpler more convenient and less costly method of carrying on the election under the commercial register or not. I say it is, and on these grounds I ask that it should stand.
As far as economy is concerned, the argument was advanced that it would be necessary either to limit the commercial electorate to a smaller number of polling stations than was employed for the election of the ordinary members of the Council or that it might be necessary to provide duplicate ballot boxes at the polling stations. I think a way out of that might easily be found if the Minister would consider the question of having ballot papers of different colours. The candidates on both ballot papers would be absolutely different, and there would be no possibility of confusion arising in the minds of any of the electorate. It would be simply a matter of sorting out the papers when the ballot boxes were opened.
If the item of expense is the only one that is agitating the Minister's mind, I can assure him that that will not arise, as the Corporation happens to possess a larger number of ballot boxes than will be required for the election of ordinary members of the Council.
I do not see the use of making the commercial electors walk there and of putting them to certain inconvenience. That is apart from the question of the use of ballot boxes.
The Minister is overlooking the fact that they will have to walk in any case, if they are good citizens—that in addition to having a vote on a commercial register these super-citizens will have votes on the ordinary register, and they will have to walk to the polling stations to exercise these votes in any case.
What about a corporate body? There would be great difficulty in arranging for it to vote in any way other than by post. The vote would have to be given under seal.
A corporate body can select one man to vote on behalf of the body. I do not think that it is even necessary to print a special register. There only needs to be a special column on the existing register just as in the past persons were recorded as being Dáil electors, Seanad electors and jurors. That only needs another column on the existing register.
Can the Deputy suggest anything more simple than postal voting?
My point is that postal voting is, in this case, designed to ensure that there will be a 100 per cent. poll in the case of the commercial representatives and that similar precautions are not being taken in the case of the ordinary electorate.
Votes are far more likely to be lost in the postal election.
I am aware that the result of the last University elections may be easily explained on that account.
The Minister of course, I know, is one of those who believes that personation should be put down. Will he tell the House what precautions he proposes to take in connection with the postal election to ensure that the person who appears on the register is the person who fills the form and determines how the votes are going to be cast? That is one of the dangers I see in this—that the system lends itself easily to abuse.
How?
Because some person other than the person whose name appears on the register may get possession of the ballot paper and fill it up.
A Deputy
Somebody may get your letters in the morning.
That is quite possible.
Will the paper not be signed by a responsible person?
Who is going to test the signature? The Minister knows it is not difficult to ensure that all the postal votes will be cast, but we have some experience of the postal voting in connection with the Dáil and we do not want to have it repeated in connection with the municipal elections. It is quite easy to forget the voter's name in these cases.
The Deputy is speaking from his own experience.
No, but any person with common sense can see the dangers in this proposal. Apart altogether from having experience, he has only to have a sufficient imagination to see what can be done.
If the Minister will remember, I raised the matter in 1927 that a large number of our supporters in the University election had not received their ballot papers at all. They were intercepted somewhere in the post.
I do not remember that.
I remember I raised it here in the Dáil. Their votes were lost.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Ta, 45; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- Wolfe, George.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Allen and Killilea; Níl, Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
19. In page 19, Section 34 (2), to delete paragraph (e).— (General Mulcahy.)
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 20:—
In page 19, Section 35 (1), line 29, to delete the word "two" and also to delete the word "members" and substitute the word "member," and in line 31 to delete the word "aldermen" and substitute the words "an alderman."
Under this amendment where there are five electoral areas there will now be six aldermen and a council of 35, and that is sufficient.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 35, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 21:—
In page 19, Section 36, before sub-section (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) At the first meeting of the City Council the business to be transacted shall be such business as the City Council is required by or under this Act or otherwise by law to transact at such meeting, and also any other business arising under this Act which, in the opinion of the City Council, it is necessary or desirable to transact at such meeting, and no notice, whether by notice of motion or otherwise, shall be required for the transaction of any such business."
This gives power to the Council to transact at the first meeting any business that they may consider requires to be done and which is of an urgent nature. It is just a precautionary measure.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 23:—
In page 20, Section 38, before sub-section (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) All fees and emoluments which are payable by or under any statute (whether passed before or after this Act) to town clerks of county boroughs or in particular to the Town Clerk of the City, and are received by the City Manager by virtue of his being the Town Clerk of the City, shall be paid by the City Manager into the municipal fund and be accounted for accordingly."
The practice of the Department recently has been to give inclusive salaries to persons such as the secretaries of county councils and of boards of health, and in all cases practically where there are old statutory fees and emoluments to arrange that these fees shall be paid into the public treasury and that the salaries paid to the officials shall be inclusive salaries. In accordance with that policy, which I think will be accepted as a sound and satisfactory one, it is proposed that all fees normally paid to the Town Clerk will now be paid into the municipal fund, so that there will be an inclusive salary for the City Manager and for the Town Clerk.
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendment was agreed to:
In page 20, Section 38 (3), line 23, after the word "appointed" to insert the words "by or."
Section 38, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 25:—
In page 20, Section 39 (3), line 62, after the word "may" to insert the words "with his consent."
Deputies will remember that under Section 86, in connection with the Committee dealing with the expenditure under the Poor Law and the Grangegorman Mental Hospital Committee it is proposed that the Manager may be a member of these bodies. This amendment secures that he shall not be appointed a member of these bodies contrary to his own consent. I think Deputies will agree that all we desire to do is to make it permissive to have the Manager a member of either of these bodies, but that if the Manager in his discretion considers that he has not time in the circumstances to spend as a member of these committees it would be within his power to decline to act.
I do not think that the Minister has made any case for the amendment. Surely if the Manager is the servant of the Council, the Council should have the right to say that he shall act as their representative on these committees and that the question of his consent shall not enter into it. It seems to me that the purpose of the amendment is very largely to make the Manager superior to the Council, to give him a veto over the Council's decisions. Undoubtedly, the proposal that the Council should have power to nominate the Manager as a member of one of these committees, in the same way as they would nominate one of their own members, is right and justifiable under the circumstances, but that the Manager should have the right to refuse to act when the Council wants him to act, seems to me absolutely unjustifiable, unless it is the Minister's intention to go back upon the ground he has already covered and make the Manager again the master of the Council instead of its servant. I am quite certain the Council would not be unreasonable in that matter.
I am quite certain the Manager would not be unreasonable either.
If he said he had not time the Council would not insist, but if the Council thought its interests required that the Manager, with the special qualifications he has, should be a member of one of those committees he should not have the right to refuse to serve on such committees.
We are aiming at having these committees composed of persons who voluntarily undertake to go on such committees and to discharge their duties there. The Council will nominate a certain number on the Mental Hospital Committee. If the Manager undertakes to go as a member of the Committee he could simply acquiesce and need not go. There is nothing incumbent upon him to put in an attendance there. Even if he did go it would not be incumbent upon him to take part in any way in the discussions there. As the Deputy said, the Council will not be unreasonable, but the Manager also will not be unreasonable. It was not our intention, and it should not be our intention, that the Manager could be asked by the Council to act in the capacity of a public representative if, in his judgment—and as City Manager he would have a very wide outlook, and his judgment would be entitled to be regarded as sound— he ought not so to act. It ought not to be a matter of that particular kind to lead to a dispute between himself and the Council. I think it is quite sound to leave it permissive, and that if the Council and the Manager agree in the matter he may act as a member of the Grangegorman Mental Hospital Committee. It was because of the drafting of this thing in regard to the Mental Hospital that there is this doubt that he might be coerced. The drafting of Section 86 is such that there is no danger of his being coerced, and there is nothing to coerce him to act, and I do not think he should be coerced, and the temptation should not be put into anybody's hand to coerce him to act. We assume normal harmonious relations, and we assume sound judgment on the part of the Manager, and I think we may well accept this amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 26:—
In page 21, Section 40 (2), to delete all from the word "and" in line 29 to the end of the sub-section.
This is really a drafting amendment. While the statutory committee is being abolished we do not want to introduce anything here that would suggest that the Council could not set up a special committee to deal with anything concerned with any of these matters or with the waterworks.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
I beg to move amendment 27:—
In page 21, section 42 (1), lines 47 and 48, to delete the words "fifteen" and "six" and substitute therefor the words "twenty-five" and "nine" respectively.
I move this amendment to enable the Council to be more representative of the general community than it is likely to be if it only consists of fifteen members. The population of the new borough consists of very diverse classes. You have some of the most prosperous elements in the community there; you have more of the prosperous elements of the community in that area, and in greater proportion than in the City of Dublin. On the other hand, you have a very large percentage of the poorer people and the workers there. It appears to me that as the Council is at present proposed to be constituted the more democratic sections of the community will not be adequately represented there, and that refers particularly to those who live in the smaller townships of Dalkey, Killiney and Blackrock. Furthermore, there is the fact that having the Council constituted of fifteen members practically compels the Minister to have only one electoral area. The process of election with a ballot paper containing fifteen names will become unwieldy and practically unworkable. For that reason, and in order to ensure that each district will have its own special representatives, we would like to increase the number of members on the council in order that we may also increase the number of electoral areas.
It was argued that one of the reasons why Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire, Dalkey and Killiney could not be included in the City area was because if they were so included these particular districts would not secure that special attention which their affairs demanded would be given to them by the Council. I think that the arguments which the Minister used to exclude these areas could also be applied now to ensure that the size of the Council shall be such that each particular district shall be first of all constituted an electoral area and that it shall have a certain quota allocated to it. I do not see how that can be very well done unless the size of the Council is increased. With a view to ensuring that it will be done and, at the same time, that in every electoral area due representation will be given to all the interests in that area, I propose that the size of the Council be increased from fifteen to twenty-five members. We are not wedded to three electoral areas. If necessary, there could be a sub-division of Dun Laoghaire and possibly of Blackrock, leaving Dalkey and Killiney as a separate electoral area.
I am very much wedded to one electoral area for this borough.
Is it a sacramental marriage—is there any divorce in it?
I think it is very necessary that you get the borough mind established in the area and that the division that at present exists arising out of the fact that you have four urban districts looking at different sections should be got away from at the earliest moment. The area is a comparatively small area. You will have a manager and you will have a council. My own idea originally was that a council of eleven members would be sufficient. I adopted the number fifteen in this measure because, after discussing the matter with the members of the urban districts throughout the area, I came to the conclusion that I would not object to a council of fifteen, if fifteen would satisfy them better. I think I may say that a council of fifteen was accepted generally as satisfactory by the parties representing the different townships with whom I discussed this.
Can the Minister envisage a ballot paper with fifteen vacancies and with say, forty-five candidates upon it? Has he considered how the electors are to mark a paper like that?
I can envisage such a ballot paper. It is a small compact area where the different men will be pretty well known from one end of the constituency to the other. I think if the Deputy works it out he will see that, with the average person voting for the average type of public man, the single transferable vote will be a vote that will exhaust itself by the time the voter comes to the end of his preferences. I am satisfied that electing in one electoral area fifteen members of the council by the single transferable vote arrangement gives you a not unsatisfactory form of getting a council for a small urban area like that. As I have already said, fifteen is the figure that I adopted in order to meet local opinion and, even if there were some difficulty in the matter of electing fifteen members, the thing that is very necessary there is to get the unified mind in the borough area itself. It is well worth any little difficulty in the ballot paper to secure that the persons elected there will be persons elected by the borough as a whole, and persons who will look on the borough as a whole as their constituency.
We will not press the amendment to a division.
Amendment 27, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 28 not moved.
I move amendment 29:—
In page 22, Section 44 (2), lines 35 and 36, to delete the words "Town Clerk of the Dun Laoghaire Urban District" and substitute the words "Borough Manager," and in lines 37 and 38 to delete the words "the said Town Clerk."
This is a drafting amendment arising out of doing away with the position of town clerk.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 30:—
In page 22, Section 44, before sub-section (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) At the first meeting of the borough council the business to be transacted shall be such business as the borough council is required by or under this Act or otherwise by law to transact at such meeting, and also any other business arising under this Act which, in the opinion of the borough council, it is necessary or desirable to transact at such meeting, and no notice, whether by notice of motion or otherwise, shall be required for the transaction of any such business."
This is analogous with the amendment just passed and its object is to enable business to be transacted at the first meeting of the Council which the Council may consider urgent.
Amendment agreed to.
Before Section 44 is put I wish to comment upon the position of mayor. I think it is undesirable that we should have a mayor in the new borough. While I say that, I think at the same time that it is desirable that it should be possible for the Council to grant remuneration to the person who is acting as chairman of the Council. I was unable to devise an amendment which would meet both points. Sub-section (3) of this section is the only item in the Bill that provides for the remuneration of the mayor. That sub-section relates to the remuneration of the mayor and the mayor only, whereas I was anxious to get rid of the mayor and to have a chairman and to have that chairman capable of receiving remuneration so that he could give a fair amount of his time to that work. I think the Minister is prepared to sacrifice the mayor if sufficient pressure is put upon him by the House. I would ask now that that pressure should be exercised. There is no need for a mayor at all. There is no need to build up an association of that kind in the coastal borough.
I am afraid that the Deputy did not try very hard to devise an amendment which would meet the points he wants to have inserted, and I do not think that the Deputy is serious in that matter or that he meant it because a word or two would amend that part of the section. I cannot take the Deputy as being serious.
I am very serious. At first, I thought it was quite easy to amend the sub-section. If, however, the Minister thinks it is easy to amend it he can do so now. It seems to me that if he deleted the word "mayor" and substituted the word "chairman" he would have provided for what I want. So far as I know there is no law at present in force relating to the remuneration of the chairman of a borough council.
I do not believe that remuneration is necessary in this case.
I could hardly submit an amendment which would reconcile the two outlooks that have just been given expression to.
I would like to see the person acting as mayor or chairman receiving remuneration so that he would be able to devote his time to looking after the work of the Council and supervising the work of the Manager. To have an unpaid mayor or chairman would be more or less to give the Manager a free hand. I dislike also the idea of creating a new mayor in the country. We have historical reasons for retaining Lord Mayors in places where they exist, but no case can be put forward for establishing a new mayor.
I see no reason why there should not be a mayor in Dun Laoghaire. There is nothing wrong about that.
Or about giving one to Skibbereen.
I expressed an opinion on this matter when the Bill was being considered on the Second Stage. I am inclined to agree with Deputy Lemass. There is good reason for retaining a Lord Mayor in Dublin because of the historic associations attaching to the post. Besides, it is the capital city. I think that if you create a rival to our Lord Mayor you are rather apt to diminish the glory of our Lord Mayor. There will be, too, a certain amount of friction at social gatherings and things of that sort which will not lead to the harmonious working of the two bodies. If you want a chairman why not call him a chairman. I think, perhaps, that he might get some remuneration. Taken purely from the point of view of sentiment, I am against the appointment of this mayor.
I can hardly take Deputy Lemass as serious when he proposes this. As far as the question of having a mayor in Dun Laoghaire is concerned, I am very open-minded about it.
Then drop it.
I would like the Minister to drop this proposal if he has an open mind upon the subject. There is a great deal in what Deputy Alton says. This might be the cause of friction and social jealousies. Little points of that kind would arise and they would not tend to harmonise the working of the two bodies. From that point of view alone I think it would be advisable to drop the proposal about a mayor in Dun Laoghaire. A chairman would be quite an efficient person and a mayor is quite unnecessary. There are historical reasons for keeping mayors in other parts of the country, but there are no reasons why we should begin to establish new mayors. If we begin in that way now there will be other applications. I see no reason why we should establish any new posts of this nature. I think it would not add anything to the dignity of the position, and it would not help efficient working on local bodies. I think it would be an advantage to the capital city if there was no mayor appointed in Dun Laoghaire.
I am prepared to meet the House in this matter, and, as an amateur's shot at drafting, I will make this suggestion: I am going to change the word "mayor" and the section will then read:—
(1) The borough council shall at their first meeting...elect one of their members to be chairman.
(2) The chairman shall continue in office...until his successor shall have been elected at the next quarterly meeting of the borough council at which a chairman is to be elected...and such successor shall have made the declaration accepting office which is required by law.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the law for the time being in force in relation to the election, tenure of office, powers, duties, privileges, and remuneration of a chairman of a borough shall apply to the election, tenure of office, powers, duties, privileges, and remuneration of the chairman.
If the House is prepared to accept that I would be prepared to accept such a proposal from Deputy Lemass.
The amendment would read "In lines 50, 51, 54, and 61, to delete the word "mayor" where it occurs and insert in lieu thereof the word "chairman."
There will be consequential amendments necessary in other parts of the Bill.
Is it too late for me to raise one small voice in protest against this procedure? To me it would seem that this whole thing smacks of silliness. We propose to put in an amendment which does away with the mayor, but we suggest that the chairman who is to be set up instead shall be just the same as a mayor. What is the point of it at all? If you are to have an officer who is to be the same as a mayor, why not call him a mayor? There seems to be some kind of semi-Republican sentimentality under this whole proposal.
Not at all.
What are the reasons that render it desirable in certain places to keep on a mayor because of historical associations and to oppose the setting up of a mayor in other places when it is equally desirable that there should be one? I must confess that I cannot see any great amount of reasoning in the whole atmosphere in which this little discussion has been carried on. I do not propose to call for a division on this matter but I certainly would like to register a protest against the whole tenor of this debate.
The Deputy would be an excellent man if he did not allow these anti-Republican bees to buzz in his bonnet.
I am not anxious to divide the House on this matter, but I do think that it would add considerably to the dignity of the whole thing if a mayor were established in Dun Laoghaire.
If the amendment I have suggested is adopted it will be necessary to make alterations in other parts of the Bill.
It will be necessary to make consequential changes in the definition section.
These could be taken as verbal amendments on the Fifth Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 44, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment 31, which is as follows, is purely a drafting amendment. It is not proposed to appoint a town clerk under this Act, and the other things arise out of the fact that the office of town clerk is abolished:—
In page 23, Section 46 (1), line 2, to delete the words "by or," and in line 3, after the word "Manager," to insert the words "and town clerk," and in lines 7 and 8 to delete the words "including the town clerk but not including" and substitute within the brackets the words "other than."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 32 is also a drafting amendment, and it deals with the doing away of the town clerk's position:—
In page 23, before Section 46 (2), to insert two new sub-sections as follows:—
(2) For the purposes of every enactment (including enactments passed or made after the passing of this Act) relating to town clerks of boroughs, the Borough Manager shall, on and after the appointed day, be the Town Clerk of the Borough, and have, exercise and perform all the powers, functions and duties for the time being conferred or imposed by any such enactment or otherwise by law on the Town Clerk of the Borough.
(3) All fees and emoluments which are payable by or under any statute (whether passed before or after this Act) to town clerks of Boroughs and are received by the Borough Manager by virtue of his being Town Clerk of the Borough, shall be paid by the Borough Manager into the municipal fund and be accounted for accordingly.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 46, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 47 and 48 put and agreed to.
I move amendment 33:—
In page 23, Section 49 (1), lines 53 and 54, to delete the words "as soon as conveniently may be after the occurrence thereof" and substitute the words "after due notice at the next meeting of the Council after the expiration of one month from the occurrence of such vacancy or as soon after that meeting as circumstances will permit."
I think amendment 33 meets the point with regard to the time in which casual vacancies will be filled.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 49, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 34:—
In page 24, Section 50 (1), to add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—
"(n) the appointment of representatives of the Corporation to attend any such conference or meeting as is mentioned in Section 2 of the Public Health and Local Government Conferences Act, 1885, and the exercise of the power conferred by that section in relation to the payment of the expenses of the attendance of such representatives at such conferences and meetings."
Amendment 34 meets the point, I think, which is contained in Deputy Byrne's amendment No. 36, that the Council shall have reserved the powers of appointing persons to attend conferences.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 36 not moved.
I move the following amendments:—
35. In page 24, line 44, to add at the end of Section 50 (1) the following paragraph:—
"the decision as to the types and rents of houses in housing schemes and the alterations or modifications of same."
37. In page 24, line 44, to add at the end of Section 50 (1) the following paragraph:—
"the approval of all contracts of £500 and upwards."
38. In page 24, line 44, to add at the end of Section 50 (1) the following paragraph:—
"the use of Irish manufactured goods or materials and the granting or giving of preferences thereon in all or any corporate requirements or schemes."
39. In page 24, line 44, to add at the end of Section 50 (1) the following paragraph:—
"the sites and forms of public buildings, and public sanitary conveniences."
40. In page 24, line 44, to add at the end of Section 50 (1) the following paragraph:—
"the fixation of prices for corporation services relating to cattle markets, food markets and abattoir."
I have been anxious, during the whole course of this debate, if possible, to give the control of contracts to the Municipal Corporation as apart from the Manager or in conjunction with the Manager. The Minister has gone a great part of the way to meet objections urged against the Bill as it stood in its original form. He has given the Council powers to deal with procedure, reception and examination of contracts rather than examination of tenders, but still the power of contract is vested absolutely in the hands of the Manager. Speaking with some knowledge of business affairs, I think the whole exercise and placing of contracts should not be in the Manager's hands exclusively. I know from past experience that the door of corruption is very frequently thrown open when contracts have been placed. I know of such a thing as commissions being offered in the placing of contracts from 2½ per cent. to 10 per cent., to those in whose hands the placing of the contracts rested. I feel we have been lucky in obtaining the services of a particularly efficient Manager who will guard us against things of that kind, but we may not be always so lucky in the Manager which the Corporation will appoint, and if it so happens that a corrupt individual will have the sole placing of the contracts as the Manager appears to have under the Bill it would be a get-rich-quick job for that particular Manager. It has been urged that, more or less, matters of that kind in the State are left in managerial hands, but anyone who has any idea of why these things are left in managerial hands knows perfectly well that it is a foregone conclusion that these contracts will be placed in the hands of the party to which the Manager belongs. That is a well-known fact in American life. I might also point out that in large firms like the English Cooperative Society the same thing exists to my own particular knowledge in connection with large contracts for tea and sugar. I have heard it frequently stated that certain firms need not apply for contracts simply because they were not prepared to give the men who had the placing of the contracts a commission.
I am asking the Minister to go a little step further and remove any ideas or thoughts that anything in the nature of corruption may exist in the Dublin Corporation in the placing of contracts. If the Minister can see his way to allow the Council to have a deciding voice in the placing of contracts he is going to have a useful factor in seeing how these contracts are going to be placed. He is going to have a double check. In the first instance, you will have the contract dealt with by the Manager. Then it will have to come to the Council in order to receive the approval of the Council for any contract that is placed. That gives a dual control over every contract which the Dublin Municipal Council will place, whereas under the present system it is almost entirely in the Manager's hands. There is no check on the Manager except the auditor. Anyone reading the daily papers for the past few weeks would see how corruption has been going on in local bodies in England for a number of years. The setting up of a special committee to go into the affairs of the councils has only enabled those things to be brought to light. Under my amendment you will have a check on the Manager. If the Council can do anything wrong as far as their small functions are concerned they can be reported to the Local Government Department. On the other hand, if you have the Council reviewing these contracts you will have a dual check on the Manager. At present you have no check except the auditor, and anyone versed in municipal affairs knows that the work of the auditor is very heavy and it is quite possible for irregularities to occur in the placing of contracts if things are left entirely in the hands of the Manager.
I would urge the Minister to go a little step further to meet the views that are held by a great many business people in the city as far as the placing of contracts are concerned. I urge it particularly on the Minister, because the placing of contracts is purely a matter of policy. It has absolutely nothing to do with administration. I make that statement with no fear of contradiction, even though the Minister may disagree with me. It is an absurd thing, in view of the amount of money that may be given away yearly in the placing of contracts that the Council proper should have no control.
The Ceann Comhairle has asked me to take the amendments together and therefore I would ask the Minister to consider the question of rent and the type of houses. I would like to point out to the Minister that since the war a certain class of house has been erected at from 16/- to £1 per week. This has made no provision for the ordinary labouring man. I should say that the Manager himself as an individual should not have the right to determine what particular class or type of houses is erected in various parts of the city. If one looks across the Channel to see what has been done there you can see that a very considerable advance has been made in the housing of the poorer population in places like Leeds, London and Glasgow. Large amounts of self contained flats have been erected and let at a rental of 9/6 and 10/- and even at a rental as low as 7/6 a week. We have done absolutely nothing in Dublin as far as that is concerned. Are we to go on in the same manner and leave the things in the Manager's hands? It appears to me that if you send in certain individuals representing their own areas that these particular councillors will know the wants of their own districts a great deal better than any Manager can hope to know them. I certainly think that a councillor, representing his own area, if particular wants exist in his own district, should have some deciding voice in seeing that the wants should be attended to. I am of opinion that it is not going to interfere in any way with administration, that it is not going to infringe in any way on the managerial powers and that it should be productive of a great deal of good for the poorer people of this city. I have met day after day people who ask me when is a house to be erected at a rent which an ordinary working man can pay. We have rents on houses at 16/- a week. A man with 50/- a week cannot look at those houses. These are questions of policy and in connection with them the Council should have some voice in their decision. I need not speak on the point of nomination of members of the Council. The Minister has met that.
I want to say one word about giving power to the Council to have a voice in giving preference to Irish goods. A great deal of controversy has gone on amongst the thinking element in this city as to the large imports of foreign goods to take the place of Irish goods where Irish goods could only be supplied at a higher price. In the housing schemes which have been carried on in Dublin we have been using a substitute in the shape of a Belgian slate. A great many people ask if the money would be better spent by using Killaloe slate instead of Belgian slate. These are also questions of policy and the Minister is leaving every one of these questions of policy entirely in the hands of the Manager.
Not at all.
Mr. Byrne
What check has the Council over him? The Minister of course may tell me that they have the check or power of the purse, but if you put a body of councillors up to accept a certain scheme of housing and the Manager will not depart from a partcular scheme the Council will be put in the position of having to accept the scheme rather than have no scheme at all. If a large body like the Dublin Corporation do not do everything humanly possible to encourage the use of Irish material and purchase Irish manufactured goods I say it is a very bad example to the country and one that the Minister ought seriously to consider. The question of unemployment, as we all know, is one that is agitating the city of Dublin, particularly at the present time. We have to pay £121,000 arising purely out of the question of unemployment. This is one of the means by which this question could be partly dealt with and very efficiently dealt with. The Dublin Corporation should have some say in seeing that Irish manufactured goods receive a reasonable preference. I would put it to the Minister, is it fair or reasonable to place decisions of such importance entirely in the hands of the Manager? You may very easily make the position of the Manager impossible, if such questions of outstanding importance as these are left entirely to his own decision. I feel, as I have already said, that we have succeeded in obtaining an exceedingly efficient Manager. At the same time on important questions of policy like these the Council should come in and take some responsibility. If the Council do not discharge their duties or functions according to the wishes of the people they can be very easily removed, but the people have no power or say over the Manager if he carries out a line of policy that is not in keeping with the wishes of the people. They have no remedy over him. I would earnestly appeal to the Minister to meet me on these questions which I call purely questions of policy entirely apart from the question of administration.
My advice to Deputy Byrne is that he is almost fully met on everything that he has done here. He talked of reserving to the Council the decision as to the types and rents of houses under housing schemes. I take it he does not mean that the Council shall be able to say that Johnny So and So's rent shall be 7/6 and not 9/6, like the rest of the people.
Mr. Byrne
No.
Section 50, sub-section (1) (a), gives the power of borrowing money for houses that have to be provided. I do not accept the Deputy's disparaging suggestion that as much has not been done in Dublin to provide houses at reasonable rents as has been done in any of the English cities.
Mr. Byrne
In the city of Leeds a man can get a three-roomed self-contained flat with sanitation and water for 7/6 a week. Can we offer anything like it in Dublin? The same thing obtains in Glasgow and London.
How many people in Leeds are looking for the same accommodation and cannot get it?
Mr. Byrne
But there is none available here.
When the city Council decide on a housing scheme they ask for proposals to be put up to them as regards the type of house and they ask for estimates and all that sort of thing. They have to decide. They certainly are not doing their duty if they do not look at the site, at the lay-out of the house, and see what kind of houses are going to be provided for the money that they are going to borrow. Before they complete their borrowing they have responsibility, you may say, of looking at the financial side of the housing proposal. They have to see how much, as a council, they are going to give as a grant towards the carrying out of that housing scheme; they have to see how much they are going to get as a government grant, and how much they are going to get from the occupier generally in order to balance the finance of their scheme. In that way the Council have almost complete general control over the rents.
Mr. Byrne
May I put a concrete case to the Minister? Supposing a certain section of the Council want self-contained flats on the north side and the Manager says "no," what power has the Council got?
The Council need not provide him with the money to build whatever he wants to build. So that the section with regard to borrowing gives complete control over the general policy as regards the kind of house that the Council are going to allow the Manager to build. It gives the Council complete control over the general balancing of the scheme and it keeps them out of the very invidious position of saying that a particular rent shall be a particular sum.
On the question of contracts, as the Deputy remarked, I have put in a section that will enable the Council to frame regulations for receipt and examination of tenders. Giving that power to the Council I say that the acceptance of a contract is a managerial function. If the Council are going to be the body that is going to accept the contract then the Manager's responsibility is diffused. If the Council accept a contract for building a particular housing scheme and the contractor turns out badly or the houses turn out badly the Manager cannot say: "This is not my responsibility." If a drainage scheme turns out badly the Manager cannot wash his hands of that. I am quite satisfied that dishonesty in connection with contracts on the part of a manager, operating through his machine of officials and supervised as to the general lines of his policy and the general results of his work by a Council, would be much more impossible than dishonesty with the Council accepting contracts.
Mr. Byrne
I would like to point out to the Minister that I have not asked for acceptance. I have asked for approval. There is a big distinction.
You must make the Manager shoulder his responsibility for accepting contracts. If you are going to hold the Manager completely responsible you cannot reasonably allow him to shed his responsibility by saying to the Council, if something turns out wrong, "You approved of this." We control the position from the point of view of examination of tenders. The Council can do that, but the acceptance of a contract, I want to argue, is a managerial function. I doubt if any Council would ask to be put into the position of approving of contracts when they are in the position of having a Manager who will shoulder full responsibility for them, and when they can completely supervise him in reference to his work.
As regards amendment 38, the Deputy, I think, will admit that even in the drafting of it he had a difficulty in meeting what he has in mind. I think it would be impossible to draft an amendment to meet what he has in mind. As the amendment stands, the Manager, I think, would hardly be able to wear a suit of homespuns, because, under it, the whole use of Irish manufactured goods is to be reserved to the Council. As I have said, I admit it is difficult to meet what the Deputy has in his mind. Local bodies, as a whole, have had this difficulty to contend with, that while a large number of them have been very anxious to support Irish slates, and some of them are actually spending more on houses than they otherwise would because they are using Irish slates, and while some more of them are spending additional money on houses because they are using locally-made bricks, in their endeavour to try to meet the want of houses for the poorer classes on the one hand and the scarcity of money on the other a very large number of them are driven to the position of not supporting Irish manufacture as much as they would like in this matter.
There is just a question I would like to put to the Minister. Taking slates as a typical example, how do the tenders received for Irish manufactured materials compare with the tenders received for foreign materials?
I think I can tell the Deputy that, on the ordinary reduced standard house that we are building in general throughout the country, it would cost about £18 more to roof in Irish slates than in asbestos slates.
I would like to know from the Minister how it is that the Glasgow Corporation, in the carrying out of their housing schemes, can afford to insist on the use of Irish slates while we cannot afford to do it though the slates are produced at our own doors.
I think I said on a previous occasion that the building technique here is probably responsible for it. For one thing, they use a smaller slate in Glasgow. The question of the Council and the Manager and their responsibility are, I suggest, involved enough without getting into a discussion now on building materials. What the Council have to do is to settle their general line of policy and then instruct their Manager. When they have settled their general line of policy they can, when sending out their specifications for houses, ask for alternative quotations for houses in which Irish windows, Irish slates, or Irish-made doors are used, but you cannot reduce to a section in a Bill that the Council shall be responsible for all that. The Council, in the effective review that they have over the plans and over the work that they propose to carry out, can quite easily institute a technique by which they can secure that their policy with regard to the use of any particular material will be carried out, their policy being, as must necessarily be the case, that when occasion arises they will consider the advantages nationally to be gained from using Irish materials. But no body is going to pass a resolution saying "henceforth we are never going to use anything but Irish materials," because they have to look at the interests of the Irish manufacturer and his employees, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, at their own interests and the interests of the city generally while making the best use of the national money.
The thing is not so simple, but I am quite satisfied that the Council, with the control they have through the money side of the thing, if they properly examine the plans, and all that, for the type of work they are going to do, can easily control the situation from the point of view that Irish manufacture shall be used along the general line of policy which they think reasonable. The remarks I have made with regard to housing generally apply to the sites and forms of public buildings, and public sanitary conveniences, which are dealt with in amendment 39. If public buildings are to be erected and sanitary conveniences, provided in any part of the city, there must always be plans of the sites and of the buildings it is proposed to put up.
Mr. Byrne
Would the Minister say under what section of the Bill the Council has any control, say, as to where sanitary conveniences are to be erected?
Whenever work of that kind has to be done, and the money required for it has to be raised out of the rates or borrowed, it is simply common sense to say that when the Council is asked either to borrow money or to raise it from the rates for such constructional work, they would ask to see the plans of the proposed site and structure. We give them that power, so that it is entirely in their own hands to use it. With regard to amendment 40, which deals with the fixation of prices for Corporation services relating to cattle markets, food markets and abattoir, that is a purely administrative act. The financial aspect of it can be controlled by the Council, because the income and the outgoings of the market, and all that, are matters that affect the yearly budget of the Council. In dealing with their yearly budget they can make arrangements that a certain income shall be required from these markets in order to meet whatever general expenses they have in connection with them, so that the Manager is not in the position that he can fix any price he likes for services such as these.
Mr. Byrne
Is the Minister aware that the present prices charged in the cattle markets are about 300 per cent. over pre-war, and that there is a feeling outside that these prices are more than the trade can bear? The Council have no power whatever to alter that state of affairs.
I contend that they have. I contend that when they discuss their budget, when it is put up to them that a certain amount of income is going to come in from the markets and that the expenditure on them is going to be so much, that they can reduce the income from the markets if they want to.
Mr. Byrne
In other words, can they fix the prices?
They can fix the prices by fixing the amount of money that they will require to be got in from the markets, and by fixing the amount of money that they are going to provide, if necessary, to be spent on them. They have general control of the finances in that way. As regards the fixing of anything else in connection with them, that is a managerial matter, and just as in other matters the general policy of the Council can easily be put into operation, because, if necessary, on any particular point arising out of it the Council can apply the section that has been inserted in the Bill enabling it, after a particular class of notice has been given, to pass a resolution requiring the Manager to do a particular act even though it is not a reserved function. They have that safeguard.
The Minister has gone a long way to meet the views of the Dáil in relation to the powers of the Council, but I think he has succeeded in stopping short of doing anything effective in these matters. I want it to be made quite clear as to what powers the Council have exactly. It is true the Minister has told us the Council have control of the rates and control of decision on big matters of policy, but that is a purely negative form of control which does not give them an effective right to decide questions which are undoubtedly questions of policy, and which ought to be decided by the elected representatives of the people. Examples have been given by Deputy Byrne. He mentioned the building of self-contained flats as against the building of houses in the form in which they have been built in recent years. The Minister said the Council can decide on the building of self-contained flats if they wish by refusing to vote money for anything else. Is that the only power the Council have in the Bill as it stands?
No. If the Council required the Manager to carry out a particular scheme and he declined to do so he can be sacked.
Will the Minister accept an amendment I have on that particular matter that enables the Council to sack him?
I am personally not going to take the Minister out of the picture when the Manager is to be sacked.
The Minister said the Council can sack the Manager, but in fact they cannot. The Council can require the Manager to prepare estimates of the cost of schemes. If they decide on an undertaking they can, under Section 67, order the Manager to proceed with execution of any such scheme after estimates and plans have been prepared under Section 55, and for which they are prepared to vote money.
Does the Deputy mean that the Council can order him to proceed with such a scheme under the circumstances?
Yes.
Certainly.
In other words, if the Council want a block of flats erected in the centre of the city they can order the Manager to prepare plans, and under Section 57 to proceed with the execution of the plans?
Certainly.
That seems to meet the point mentioned by Deputy Byrne in respect of Section 35. If I thought the Council had only negative power to refuse to vote money for certain purposes I would not be satisfied, but as they can decide that definite schemes can be undertaken it is a big improvement on the Bill as introduced. The Minister on the matter of contracts has gone a long way to meet the views of the Dáil, but he has again stopped short of doing what the Dáil wants him to do. The provision in Section 51 that the Council can determine the manner in which tenders are to be received and examined will in practice prevent the Manager from doing anything which would be seriously detrimental to the interests of the ratepayers, or carrying out any operation which might be described as corrupt, because the mere fact that the Council will have the opportunity of knowing the tenders which were submitted for the execution of any particular work will act as an effective safeguard over the Manager when he comes to decide which particular firm is to get a contract. The Bill as originally introduced gave the Manager, if he so choose, the power to receive tenders in secret and to award contracts in secret, which was an undesirable arrangement. Section 51 is a considerable improvement, but it does not meet the point Deputy Byrne was trying to provide for in amendment 38, which deals with one of the matters of policy which the Council should decide.
The actual awarding of the contract and the supervision of its execution are functions to be exercised by the Manager, but the Council should have the right to decide what preferences, if any, are to be given when contracts are under consideration, such as preference to local traders for the supply of goods, preference to Irish manufacturers for the supply of articles needed, and preferences of a kind such, for example, as are given in Northern Ireland to local firms in all contract work. As the Minister is aware from certain matters that arose quite recently, the Northern Ministry have instructed the local government bodies in the six counties to give a preference to Six-county firms, and have asked that if they cannot get a Six-county firm to do the work that they should get it done by a British firm rather than have it done by Free State firm. If the Council decide to give a preference to Dublin firms, or to Twenty-six county firms as against Six-county firms, they should be empowered to do so. Under the Bill as it stands, a decision of that kind will be taken by the Manager and not by the Council. These are obviously matters of policy into which the Manager should not be allowed to enter, if he is to be, as the Minister asserts he wants him to be, a purely executive officer to carry out policy decided by the elected representatives of the people. The wording of a section providing that the Council would have that power reserved to it would not be easy, but it certainly would not be impossible, and if the Minister is anxious to ensure that that matter, which is a matter of policy purely, will be reserved to the Council he could get it done. It has nothing whatever to do with the ability of the firms to carry out the contracts for which they have tendered, or matters of that kind, in which the Manager shall have the greatest say.
I take it that in deciding the sites and form of public buildings, and structures of that kind, the Council have power under Section 57 to arrive at decisions even if no such projects are in the mind of the Manager. The Minister when speaking on the matter seemed to indicate that the Council could only decide when an actual project was in contemplation by the Manager, that they could reject his plans and order him to substitute others. I take it that under Section 57 the Council can decide something the Manager had not thought of, and order him to prepare plans and execute them, when they are prepared to provide the money. Am I correct in that?
Yes. Sub-section (1) says quite clearly "Any particular act, matter or thing specifically mentioned."
The only matter that seems to require amendment in the Bill arising out of the amendments in Deputy Byrne's name is that in relation to the giving of preferences in the awarding of contracts. I do not see how the Minister can possibly argue that is a matter of administration. It is obviously a matter of policy and should be reserved to the Council.
I have said what I think of these two amendments. We have a provision in the Bill by which the Council in the actual carrying out of its business, and coming up against problems which Deputies say are involved in these matters, can make proposals to the Minister, and a Ministerial order can be issued giving them further reserved functions in specifically defined terms to deal with whatever they think additional is required to be reserved to them in respect of these matters. We therefore provide an amendment that instead of requiring a two-thirds majority of the Council to look for an order giving increased reserved functions we make it clear that a clear majority of the council can do that. If we have any confidence at all in the Council standing seriously over its business, accepting the idea of the City Manager and helping to administer the city on sound lines, I think we cannot say that there is any particular problem to be solved in this that they will not direct their minds to and see what best can be done and what ought to be done if reserved functions are necessary. I think the matter is not one that can most satisfactorily be settled here, but that it must work out in actual practice.
Would not the Minister put into Section 51 a provision that not merely should the Council have power to make regulations concerning the reception and examination of tenders but also the awarding of contracts, knowing as he does that under sub-section (2) of that section regulations cannot come into operation until he approves of them? That would enable him to limit the regulations in regard to contracts to the particular matters to which I referred.
I can imagine that that may require to be done in the handling of tenders when they come in, but I cannot imagine what is in the Deputy's mind with regard to the regulations for the acceptance of tenders. After all, when the tenders are brought to the final stage of handling a contract has to be entered into.
I mean that the Manager should be empowered to give, say, a five per cent. preference for goods of Irish manufacture. That is the class of regulation I have in mind.
The Manager will have that power. Deputies may say that he ought not to have it.
The point is as to what exactly is the power the Manager will have. Should not the Council have power to fix the preference, to say that it should not exceed ten per cent. or twenty per cent. or a hundred per cent.?
I want the Council to stand over their own work, to say whether they want any power like that. They have machinery for approaching the Minister if they want to do anything like that.
That is only putting it on the long finger.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
In page 24, line 44, to add at the end of Section 50 (1) the following paragraph:—
"except where otherwise provided by law, the making of general regulations concerning the appointment, promotion and removal of officers and servants of the Corporation (not including the City Manager) and fix the maximum rates of remuneration to be paid to such officers and servants."
This is an amendment which I will not argue at length, because we have already argued it on the Cork City Bill. By it I seek to give the Council power to decide the general regulations that shall apply in the appointment, promotion and removal of officers and servants of the Corporation, and to fix the maximum and the minimum rates of remuneration to be paid to such officers and servants. It seems to me that it is obviously a matter of policy, and, therefore, a matter to be decided by the Council, as to what procedure shall be adopted in recruiting the staff of the Corporation and as to the scales of salaries which the staff shall be entitled to receive. I do not propose, nor do I think it right, that the Council should interfere with the Manager in relation to individuals, should say that A. B. is to be paid so much, that C. is to be promoted and D. sacked, or anything of that kind; but the Council should have the right to decide such questions as to whether or not clerical positions are to be filled by competitive examination, whether or not seniority is to apply in the promotion of officers, to fix scales of salaries that shall apply to particular servants, the minimum and the maximum rates of salary, and things of that kind. They are not points of administration; they are not matters that a board of directors of a company would entrust to the general manager. I suggest that a board of directors would insist on deciding such questions for themselves, and in our opinion the Council should also have power to decide such questions for itself. However, I do not think that there is much prospect of moving the Minister in the matter, so I have merely stated the case again. Perhaps we shall be able at some date to get the Council to demand that this power shall be given them.
There is just one point that struck me when listening to Deputy Lemass, and that was with regard to the appointment of the officers of the Council. I remember when the Greater Dublin Commission was sitting that there was a general feeling that there should be appointments by public examination.
In fact, that is the practice.
Can the Minister ensure that in the Bill? It is a very delicate question as to who will supervise the staff with regard to the question of promotion. If you are to make the Manager responsible I am afraid you must give him the necessary powers.
I do not object to that.
I think it would be better not to give them to the Manager.
On the question of appointments there is a very longstanding tradition that clerical appointments should be made as a result of a public examination. As far as technical appointments are concerned, there will be the Local Appointments Commission. I appreciate Deputy Lemass's appreciation of my attitude with regard to this amendment. We cannot accept this amendment, but we want to make it clear to the Deputy that the position of the staff and their general conditions are not in the completely exposed position to the Manager's will and whim that he suggests, because the Minister has very wide control over the general conditions of service of officers of local bodies, over their pay, over their superannuation, and over their dismissal, so that you have growing up quite a code of law administered by the Minister that will protect the staff against the whim of the Manager, and the Manager will not simply be a person who is given full control over the general conditions of employees.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
In page 24, line 44, to add at the end of Section 50 (1) the following paragraph:—
"the making of decisions relating to the initiation or defence of any action or other legal proceedings, whether civil or criminal, in any court of law or equity other than prosecutions under any Act for the time being in force for the protection of public health."
This amendment is also designed to reserve to the Council decisions on matters which are obviously matters of policy—the initiation or defence of any action or other legal proceedings, except ordinary routine actions arising under the Public Health Acts and things of that kind. It might easily happen that a City Manager with a taste for litigation will be appointed at some time, and he could perhaps put the Council into such a position that they would have a considerable bill of costs to meet at the end of the year as the result of legal proceedings unwisely entered into. The Council should have some power of check over a Manager of that kind. It might be necessary to have some financial limit under which the Manager would have a free hand to take action if he thought fit, but over which the Council would have to be consulted before proceedings could be started or an action defended. I think it would be unwise to leave it absolutely to the discretion of the Manager to decide whether or not legal proceedings should be initiated or whether or not any action should be defended. In many cases it can easily be imagined that big matters of policy might arise, and the Council would be put in a very invidious position if, in its name, the Manager could proceed to take action without consulting them.
What kind of matters of policy? The position is that we are giving certain duties to the Council, and certain duties to the Manager, and the law is certainly the implement both of the Council in respect of their duties, and of the Manager in respect of his duties, to enable them in the ultimate to carry out their responsibilities. You cannot put a Manager in this very responsible position and then say: "You can have all the weapons in the armoury but you cannot have the law." It may be a case of noncompliance with a contract, or nonpayment of rates, but I think the Manager's armoury for carrying out his work generally would be very prejudiced if, in any particular case, before he went to law, he had to make an exposure of the whole facts to the Council in public, as he would naturally have to do, if he had to get the Council's approval to go ahead with the action.
Would not that apply in the case of a county council at present?
The county council is responsible, and does its work in its own way. I do not know if county councils go in for much litigation. I know that many things are threshed out in public at county council meetings that certainly do not improve the county council case, or do not improve anything for that matter. On the ground that the Manager is going to be free and effective he must know that he can, in an untrammelled way, bring the law into motion as part of his machinery for getting things done. Even in the interests of the Council, where the Council would agree that the law ought to be invoked, they might easily have their position prejudiced by having a public discussion of the lines upon which a dispute arises. That would furnish their opponents in law with a very considerable amount of material which it might be undesirable to furnish. I would ask Deputies to realise that if you give the Manager certain responsibilities he must have free access to the law. If the Manager is given to litigation, as well as spending his time at it and spending public money, that is a flaw in his general management, and the Council has machinery to point out the flaw, and if it cannot be eradicated in one way it can be eradicated in another.
I would like to distinguish between the two classes of prosecutions. There is the ordinary prosecution for selling adulterated milk, not paying rates, or routine prosecutions which the council should not have before them, and which the Manager could deal with as part of his duties. I was trying to think of a type of case that the Council should be consulted about, and the best example that came to mind was that in which the Dublin Union Commissioners were recently engaged, concerning the question of due relief of destitute poor people. In that case it was obviously a big matter of policy, and not a matter of administration that was involved, and if there had been an elected body in charge of the Dublin Union at the time, it would undoubtedly have been entitled to be consulted.
How does the Manager come into a case like that?
Under the Bill as it stands the Manager is the only person entitled to come in.
No. If anybody is going to be prosecuted for not giving due relief it would be the body dealing with the poor law.
I am not saying that this is identical of the type of case that would arise, but I think it is analogous. It might easily happen that a case would arise which the Council as a matter of policy would not defend, or that the Manager might embark on proceedings which the Council from the point of view of policy would not embark upon. In other words, the Council might be put in a position which, if left to their own discretion, they would not get into. There should be some provision by which the Manager would consult the Council at least before initiating proceedings in matters involving large sums of money, or in matters of public policy. The difficulty which the Minister mentioned—that the merits of the Council's case might have to be discussed in public before an action was commenced—applies to every other elected body in the country, except Cork Corporation, and I do not think it has proved to be altogether insurmountable in the past. But if, in the Minister's mind, there is an insurmountable difficulty, it can be got over by giving the Council power to make regulations providing that under certain circumstances a committee of the Council or the Lord Mayor or the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen should be consulted by the Manager before legal proceedings of that kind were initiated or defended.
Is not Deputy Lemass assuming that the Manager is going to be a crank?
He might be. I do not say that Mr. Sherlock is.
I do not think such a Manager as the Deputy refers to would be kept. We must assume that we are going to be lucky and get the right man, and we must give him the right power and not tie his hands. I hope no Manager is going to indulge in a frantic orgy of litigation.
Surely there is nothing unreasonable in what Deputy Lemass asks. I think Deputy Lemass was not concerned about petty prosecutions for adulterated milk or matters of that kind, but about cases in which the Manager was inclined to involve the Council in large law costs. Surely there is something wrong there. If he is a Manager at all he is Manager for the Council. The Minister talks of the position of the council being prejudiced by public discussion. One could understand that if it was a public meeting, but surely any council knowing their business would not discuss a big law case in public, as they would have certain committees which would go into the matter. That is what happens. Even a municipal council would not attempt to discuss matters like that in public. There are committees for doing that work.
Discuss what?
Cases.
About what subjects?
There may be litigation with contractors, or things of that kind.
We are only theorising about it. If in the working out of things the Council require control over certain classes of litigation they can apply for reserved functions in respect of that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
In page 44, Section 50 (4), line 59, to delete the words "two-thirds" and substitute the words "one-half."
If the House would agree I would amend this amendment so as to make the section read, "for the passing of which more than one half of the members of the Council voted." That would mean, if the House is agreeable, instead of "not less than" we insert "more than" and instead of "two-thirds" we say "one-half."
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
I move:—In page 24, Section 50 (4), line 62, to delete the words "Town Clerk" and substitute the word "Manager." This is consequential on the abolition of the office of Town Clerk.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 50, as amended, put and agreed to.
I move: In page 25, Section 52 (3), to delete all words after the word "Council" line 43 to the end of the sub-section. Sub-section (3) of Section 52 which deals with the appointment of the Manager says: "On and after the appointed day the appointment of a person to be a Manager shall be made by the Council and the office of Manager shall be an office to which the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926 applies." I am against that section because it is a cod. It is so much camouflage, designed to deceive the public as to who has the appointment of Manager. If the office of Manager is an office to which the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, applies the appointment will be made by the Appointments Commissioners and not by the Council. It is only humbugging the Dáil and the Council to say that the appointment shall be made by the Council. I dislike humbug and that is why I propose this amendment. I think that the position of Manager can be filled just as well by the Council as by the Appointments Commissioners. The Commissioners may be useful in deciding between the relative claims of applicants for technical positions, but I dispute the contention that the position of City Manager is a technical one. It does not require technical training. It requires an amount of experience in general municipal affairs and an amount of general ability. The Council will probably be as good, if not better, than the Appointments Commissioners in picking out a man of ability. Judging by some of the appointments made by the Commissioners they could not have been worse.
It is not proposed to take the appointment of the Manager outside the scope of the Local Appointments Commissioners. If they are entrusted with the work of the selection of officers of local bodies throughout the country they can be entrusted with the work of selecting managers.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move:—
In page 55, Section 52 (5), lines 48 and 49, to delete the words "removed without the sanction of the Minister and shall not be."
Sub-section (5) provides that the Manager shall not be removed without the sanction of the Minister, and shall not be either suspended or removed by the Council except by two-thirds majority. The Minister told us some time ago that if the Manager did not do what the Council wanted in certain matters the Council could remove him. This sub-section, however, shows that the Minister was somewhat inaccurate. The Council cannot remove him. It can only recommend his removal. My amendment proposes to give effective control to the Council over the Manager. If they find that he is not doing his work, that he is making a mess of the job, and is refusing to carry out lawful orders, they should have the right to remove or suspend him. Power is given under the Bill provided the Council can muster two-thirds of a majority in favour of the suspension or removal of the Manager that suspension or removal should be effective without taking the Minister into consultation. I am inclined to think that the Minister for Local Government, especially the present Minister, will automatically side with the Manager, notwithstanding the merits of a dispute. That is why I think the inclusion of these words in the sub-section as it stands will mean that the Council will not be able to dismiss the Manager unless the Minister desires that he should go. That is not a satisfactory arrangement. It will be no easy matter to get two-thirds of the Council to recommend that the Manager be removed. It will not be possible unless there is grave reason for removing him. The fact that a two-thirds majority is against him should be taken as prima facie proof that there is grave reason for his removal, and his removal should be automatic.
Naturally very serious consideration would be given and it would require the Minister to make a very strong case to explain why he did not remove the Manager if two-thirds of the Council voted for his removal. It is the general administrative, statutory policy of the Department that an officer cannot be removed without the consent of the Minister. There are no adequate reasons for taking the Minister out of the picture in the case of the Manager. I do not think that Deputies should lightly run away with the idea that the Minister will very likely stand for the administration of a Manager where two-thirds of the Council consider that he is not fitted for the position.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move:—
In page 25, Section 52 (6), line 57, to delete the word "Minister" and substitute the words "Council with the approval of the Minister."
Sub-section (6) provides that the Manager shall be paid a salary which the Minister decides on. I do not think that it is asking too much to give the Council at least power, subject to the sanction of the Minister, to say what salary the Manager shall get. If he is to be the officer of the Council and not of the Minister, the Council should have the right to fix his remuneration. There might be a possibility that while under certain circumstances the Council might be unable to remove the Manager by a majority of two-thirds, they might by a majority vote force his resignation by refusing to pay his salary; but the inclusion of the words "with the approval of the Minister" makes that impossible because, unless the Minister approves of the salary which the Council proposes to fix, that salary cannot come into operation. It is only a shadow of power which the amendment seeks to give the Council, but even though it is only a shadow, let the Council have it. To set up a body presumed to be in charge of the City of Dublin and to take from it power to decide the salary of its chief executive officer is, in my opinion, a very foolish proceeding. The amendment is only a minor one, but I ask the Minister to accept it, seeing that the effective power of decision is left in his hands.
When we were discussing the previous stage, the House agreed that the experience of the Department was such that it was in the best position to judge what the salary of the person who gets this position should be. I do not think there is any reason for bringing in between the relations of the Council and the Manager the fact that the Council should fix the Manager's remuneration. It is unnecessary that it should be done. There have already been cases in which there have been serious disputes arising for one reason or another between the local body and the Minister in regard to the remuneration that should be paid to a responsible officer. Under the provisions of this Bill no such dispute is likely to arise, as a reasonable salary will be fixed. It will be fixed by the Minister who, in respect of many other officers, has power to over-ride the local authority.
I agree that the Local Government Department ought to have the over-riding authority the Minister speaks of, and ought to be in a position to rectify an injustice, as we do know that there are public boards, especially in the case of highly-educated and highly-experienced men, professional men, that sometimes are not anxious to pay a reasonable salary to these officers. That happened in one or two cases to my own knowledge that came under my notice in the last twelve months, but I do not think that would apply to a body like the Municipal Council of Dublin. As far as I know, the practice usually has been that they were inclined to be over-generous in the past, but even then I have known one or two cases where the generosity of the Council towards its officials—in the opinion of some of us, they were too generous—did not satisfy the Local Government Department. That was in the old days. I have known cases in which a salary of £1,700 or £1,800 was not thought sufficient for the office of town clerk, and the Local Government Department afterwards made it £2,000. Departments and their officials do not change very much. The tradition is carried on, and what happened then may happen again. The outlook of officials in regard to salaries is often very different to the outlook of public representatives. Apart from that, and recognising that the Department must have that authority to rectify abuses or injustices—I think that is right and proper—I do think it is a gross derogation of the dignity of a body like the Municipal Council of Dublin that it should not have power to decide what its own officials should have in the way of salary. I think that it is an unworthy suggestion to a body of that kind. There is no limited company or corporate body that I know of in the City of Dublin which would tolerate a position of that kind in regard to its own senior officials.
I remember when the representative of the Chamber of Commerce, who gave evidence before the Greater Dublin Commission—I have referred to this before—was questioned on the matter of the appointment, the control and, I think, the salary of the City Manager, that he declared definitely that the authority even for the selection of the Manager should lie with the Municipal Council. That is my recollection, and I think that, seeing the nature of the body, the least the Minister ought to do would be to accept this moderate amendment of Deputy Lemass. Taking the history of the Municipal Council as we know it, and of the councils that will now form part of the Greater Dublin Municipal Council, I think in general there has rarely been an instance in which it could be said that an inadequate salary was paid to a senior official. In case they were inclined to be too generous, which, I think, is unlikely, to this officer, the Minister could step in and rectify what he might think was an injustice either to the ratepayers or to the individual concerned. I think that the Minister's control is preserved by the wording of the amendment, and that he has all the power that is necessary, but that it is at least due to the dignity of the Municipal Council, if they are not to be allowed to select their own official, that they should be allowed to say what the salary attaching to the office may be.
I am entirely unmoved.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move:—
In page 26, Section 53 (1), lines 6 and 7, to delete the words "the Lord Mayor or Mayor of the Council (as the case may require)" and substitute the words "every member of the Council."
I accept the amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 26, Section 53 (2), lines 12 and 13, to delete the words "The Lord Mayor or Mayor (as the case may be)" and substitute the words "every member of the Council."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 53, as amended, put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 26, Section 56, line 35, to insert in brackets after the word "discussion" the words "(other than discussions relating to the election of a member to be Lord Mayor)."
We are prepared to give the Manager certain wide powers to ensure that the work of the Dublin Corporation will be effectively carried out, but we do not think that these powers should necessarily include the right to criticise the person nominated for Lord Mayor. The purpose of the amendment is to compel the Manager to be silent when the election of Lord Mayor is under discussion at the Council. I do not think that is unreasonable.
Under the arrangement by which the Town Clerk becomes Manager, he will take the Chair at the first meeting until the Lord Mayor is elected and he will have to discharge certain functions. I do suggest that it is unnecessary to put in an amendment which practically says that the Manager shall not criticise, in presiding at the first election and only at the first election—that he shall by statute be prevented from saying what he thinks about the candidates for Lord Mayor.
It is not only at the first election. I agree that at the first election he should be allowed to speak—not necessarily to say what he thinks about the persons proposed for Lord Mayor, but allowed to speak. At subsequent elections of Lord Mayor, however, the outgoing Mayor would occupy the Chair and the Manager would be present and as the Bill stands would be entitled to stand up and criticise the individual who held office for the previous twelve months; to say that he found him an objectionable person to work with or that he had other faults which members of the Council might not have been aware of, or something of that kind. It would be obviously undesirable that the Manager should have that right. Whatever he might say at ordinary meetings of the Council, when normal routine business was under consideration, he should, I think, not say anything when the question of a Lord Mayor is under discussion by the Council. It only happens once a year; he can talk for the rest of the year provided he keeps silent for the five or six minutes the Council would be meeting to elect one of its members as Lord Mayor.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move amendment 51:
In page 26, to add at the end of Section 56 a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The Manager shall attend any meeting of the Council or of any committee of the Council at which he is requested by the Council to attend, and shall at such meeting give to the Council or such committee (as the case may be) such advice and assistance as shall reasonably be required of him by the Council or such committee, and for that purpose the Manager shall arrange for the attendance at such meeting of such of the officers of the Corporation as may be necessary, having regard to the business to be transacted at such meeting.
I move amendment 52, which is an amendment to amendment 51:
To delete in the proposed new sub-section all words after the word "Corporation" to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "as the Council may consider necessary having regard to the business to be transacted at such meeting."
There is nothing in the Minister's amendment to indicate who shall decide whether it is or is not necessary that a particular official shall be present at a council meeting, Irrespective of whether my amendment is accepted or not, some amendment of the Minister's amendment is required, because it is undesirable that the matter should be left in the ambiguous state in which the Minister's amendment leaves it. It is obvious that it is the Council must decide in this matter. The attendance of the officials will be required because the Council wants them to be present and therefore it is the Council which should decide on the necessity of their being there and not the Manager. This is another reasonable amendment which I hope the Minister will accept.
I am opposed to the amendment to my amendment for the reason that I am not prepared to accept anything that would put the temptation before the Council to specify unnecessarily individual members of the staff whom they wanted to have at their council meetings. I submit that my amendment is quite adequate to do everything that may be required by the Council. It leaves the selection of the officers in the hands of the Manager, but the purpose of the Council is the purpose that is to be served, and if sufficient officers are not produced by the Manager to give the advice and the assistance that the council requires the Council will be dissatisfied and will want further advice and assistance, and I submit, therefore, that it is a reasonable amendment. But it must be the complete responsibility of the Manager to deal with his staff, and if the Council were in the position that they could nominate, for one reason or another, certain officials whom they wanted to see, I consider it would be an inadvisable position in which to put the staff, the Manager and the Council. We put on the Manager full responsibility for providing the information, and advice that the Council may want, and for that purpose providing whatever officials may be necessary.
Amendment to amendment put and negatived.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 56, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 53:—
In page 27, Section 57 (4), line 4, after the word "exceeds" to insert the word "either," and in line 5, after the word "Council" to insert the words "or two-thirds of the members present and voting."
Section 57 provides that after certain procedure the Council may instruct the Manager to do a particular act, matter or thing, which normally would be the Manager's own proper function. I agreed to introduce an amendment which would make it clear that either one-half of the total Council or two-thirds of the members present could call upon the Manager to do that act, matter or thing.
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
In page 27, Section 57, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"In the event of any dispute arising between the Council and the Manager as to whether or not any resolution passed by the Council under this section contravenes the provisions of sub-section (5) hereof, the matter shall be referred for decision to the Minister."—(Mr. Lemass.)
On the section, I should like to draw attention to the words "as soon as possible" in sub-section (3). Would it not be advisable to put in something more definite there; to put in seven days, or three or four days, or whatever time the Minister thinks would be necessary? I think it would be better to have some definite phraseology rather than to leave it vague by inserting "as soon as possible." It might lead to members of the Corporation at some time or another feeling that they were not being fairly treated. If the Minister would put in some definite number of days it would be more effective.
"As soon as possible" here means immediately, and sub-section (2) provides that the meeting shall be held on a particular date; that is, the Manager cannot prevent the meeting being held at an early date, and I think the Manager would not do anything that would put the Council in the position of having a grievance against him. I shall look into the point which the Deputy makes and, if necessary, we can change it.
I have in mind something that happened in days gone by when the Town Clerk used whatever discretion he had to suit himself or certain interests in the Council at different times. It might happen in future. I do not think it would happen with the gentleman now suggested as Manager, but we are not legislating for individuals, but for the future, and we do not know who may occupy this office later. Having that in mind, I think it would be better to make that more definite.
Section 57, as amended, agreed to.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
55. In page 27, Section 58 (1), lines 28 and 29, to omit the words "including the Town Clerk."—(General Mulcahy.)
Section 58, as amended, agreed to.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
56. In page 28, Section 59 (4), line 1, to delete the words "Town Clerk" and substitute the word "Manager," and in line 2 to delete the words "the Manager" and substitute the word "him," and in line 3 to delete the words "Town Clerk" and substitute the word "Manager."
57. In page 28, Section 59 (6), to delete lines 14 to 18 and the word "clerk" in line 19, and substitute the words "(6) Every document purporting to be certified in writing by the Manager to be a true copy of an order made by the Manager under this section shall, without proof of the signature of the person purporting so to certify or that such person was the Manager."—(General Mulcahy.)
Section 59, as amended, was agreed to.
I move amendment 58:—
In page 28, Section 60 (1), line 24, to insert after the word "him" the words "and countersigned by the City Accountant or the Borough Accountant (as the case may require)," and in sub-section (4), page 28, line 47, to delete the words "of the Manager" and substitute the words "and counter-signature mentioned in that sub-section."
This amendment is necessary in order to provide some countersignature. Now that the office of Town Clerk is abolished, it is proposed that there shall be a countersignature by the City Accountant or the Borough Accountant, as the case may be.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 60, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 59:—
In page 29, Section 61, before sub-section (6), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(6) No part of the municipal fund or of any money under the control of the Corporation shall be applied for any purpose not authorised by this or any other Act or, in the case of money derived from trust funds, by the trusts affecting those funds."
There is a general provision of this kind in the statutes dealing with the handling of county council funds, and it is thought well to put in this amendment into this section so that the complete law dealing with the municipal fund will be embodied in the present Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Section 61, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 60:—
In page 29, Section 62 (3), lines 39-41 inclusive, to delete the words "and to the time within which payments may be made directly or indirectly out of the poor rate," and to delete all words after the word "Corporation," line 43, to the end of the sub-section, and before sub-section (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:— (4) Sub-section (7) of Section 51 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall not apply or have effect in relation to any debt, claim, or demand which is directly or indirectly payable out of the municipal rate.
Section 51 (7) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, provides that payment out of the poor rate shall be made inside the six months in which it becomes due, or inside three months after that. It provides that if the payment is not made the sanction of the Minister for Local Government will be required for the making of the payment, and then the period can be extended for two years. This only applies to the poor rate and not to the ordinary municipal rate. After full discussion with the Corporation authorities we decided to remove this restriction, which would require payment within the particular time. There is adequate safeguard that the debts of the Corporation will be suitably paid, and paid in good time, and the restriction in this particular section is not required.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 62, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 61:—
In page 29, before Section 63, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Where a tenement or hereditament situate in the city or the borough is held (whether together with or without other premises) under a lease which binds the lessor to pay or allow a deduction or set off against or indemnify the lessee against or otherwise to relieve the lessee from any rates (other than poor rate) payable in respect of such tenement or hereditament, all rent payable under such leave in respect of a period commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1931. shall be reduced—
(a) in the case of an annual rent, by an amount equal to the amount of the rates (other than poor rate) in respect of such tenement or hereditament for the local financial year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1930, to which the relief afforded to the lessee by such lease lawfully extended, and
(b) in the case of any rent other than an annual rent, by an amount which bears to the rates (other than poor rate) in respect of such tenement or hereditament for the local financial year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1930, to which the relief afforded to the lessee by such lease lawfully extended the same proportion as the period by reference to which such rent is calculated bears to one year.
(2) In this section the word "lease" includes any contract of tenancy, whether in writing or verbal, whereby the relation of landlord and tenant is created, and the words "lessor" and "lessee" respectively include the landlord of and the tenant under such tenancy.
Under Section 52 (2) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, the landlord is prohibited from entering into a contract under which he would pay the poor rate for the occupier. But there is nothing to prevent the landlord entering into a contract by which he would pay the other rates. This amendment is necessary in order, now that the occupier will be responsible for the whole of the municipal rate, that where cases exist where there are leases under which the landlord pays the municipal rate there shall be an adjustment of rent because of the fact that the occupier is now made responsible not only for the poor rate but for what were the other municipal rates by reason of the fact that he now becomes responsible for the municipal rate as a whole.
How is this affected by the Act passed recently by which the landlord pays when the house is under a certain valuation?
That is the Small Dwellings Act. We apply the Small Dwellings Act in another amendment, but it does not arise in this section.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 62.
In page 29, lines 50 to 54, to delete Section 63 and substitute a new section as follows:—
The provisions of this Part of this Act abolishing certain rates shall not extend or apply to charges (commonly called contract water rates) made for the supply of water to particular hereditaments or tenements for purposes other than domestic purposes or to the supply of water under special contract to any person not otherwise entitled to such supply, and such charges shall, in the construction of this Act, not be included in the expression "rates abolished by this Act."
This is a re-drafting of an amendment which came up on the Committee Stage.
I would like to ask the Minister to explain this further. It seems to me as if it might bring in in a double way houses brought into the city under the Bill from the county. Houses at present in the county may be getting their water supply through contract, and it would appear that if they are brought into the city they would be liable for the full rate in the city. It would appear under this amendment they would also be liable for the water rate that they were paying for a special supply when not in the city, and thus the Corporation would be getting at them twice over.
A contract made say with the South Dublin Rural District Council was a contract for the supply of water to the council, which they disposed of in their own way for domestic purposes and otherwise. So far as that contract lasts it will remain with the county council in respect of the area that remains outside the new city. But hereditaments that are receiving water from either the North or South Rural District Councils for domestic purposes, and which, normally, pay a domestic water rate will be simply regarded as ordinary domestic water users under the City Council. The contracts referred to are special contracts. I take it that if 5/- or 10/- is paid for the use of the garden hose that is a contract that a person will still be liable for, but it does not in any way refer to water supplied for domestic purposes.
Is the Minister satisfied that that is what is covered by the new section? At present the householder in the county enters into a separate contract on his own behalf if he wishes to get a water supply from the Corporation. He enters into a contract not only for the special purpose of a garden hose, but also for domestic purposes. He makes a definite contract to that effect in each case.
With the Corporation?
Yes.
I am advised that the situation is quite sound, but I shall have the matter further examined and, if necessary, make a change.
Amendment put and agreed to.
New section ordered to stand part of the Bill.
I move amendment 63:—
In page 30, lines 35 to 64, to delete Section 66 and substitute a new section as follows:—
(1) The following limitation shall have effect in respect of the assessment of a municipal rate to which this sub-section applies on a hereditament or tenement situate in either of the areas which at the passing of this Act constitutes an added urban district, that is to say, so much in the pound of any such rate as is raised for purposes other than the excepted purposes as hereinafter defined shall not exceed the total amount in the pound of so much of all rates (other than the police rate) assessed on the urban district in which such hereditament or tenement was situate for or in respect of the year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1929, as was raised for purposes other than defraying the expenses of performing the duties of a board of guardians.
(2) The following limitation shall have effect in respect of the assessment of a municipal rate to which this sub-section applies on a hereditament or tenement situate in the added rural area, that is to say, so much in the pound of any such rate as is raised for purposes other than the excepted purposes as hereinafter defined shall not exceed the total amount in the pound of so much of all rates (other than the police rate) assessed on hereditaments and tenements (other than agricultural land) in the townland in which such first-mentioned hereditament or tenement was situate for or in respect of the year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1929, as was raised for purposes other than defraying the expense of performing the duties of a board of guardians.
(3) The following limitation shall have effect in respect of the assessment of a municipal rate to which this sub-section applies on a hereditament or tenement situate in the area which at the passing of this Act constitutes the urban district of Killiney and Ballybrack, that is to say, so much in the pound of any such rate as is raised for purposes other than the excepted purposes as hereinafter defined shall not exceed the total amount in the pound of so much of all rates (other than the police rate) assessed on the said urban district for or in respect of the year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1929, as was raised for purposes other than defraying the expenses of performing the duties of a board of guardians.
(4) Sub-section (1) and (2) of this section shall apply to every municipal rate made in the city for or in respect of a year prior to the year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1936, and sub-section (3) of this section shall apply to every municipal rate made in the borough for or in respect of a year prior to the year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1936.
(5) The following purposes shall be excepted purposes within the meaning of this section, that is to say:—
(a) defraying the expenses of performing the duties formerly performed by a board of guardians;
(b) meeting a demand by the Dublin Port and Docks Board under section 27 of the Dublin Port and Docks (Bridges) Act, 1929 (No. 2 (Private) of 1929);
(c) defraying expenses incurred or meeting a demand made under any Act (other than this Act) passed by the Oireachtas after the 31st day of March, 1930, whether before or after the passing of this Act.
(6) Nothing in this section shall apply to a rate assessed on a hereditament or tenement mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act.
This is merely a re-drafting of the section.
I beg to move amendment 64 in the name of Deputy Lemass.
In sub-section (4) of the proposed new section to delete the figures "1936" wherever they occur and substitute the figures "1932."
It is an amendment to Amendment 63 which the Minister has moved, and its object is to alter the figures 1936 and to substitute the figures 1932. It appears to us that there is no special reason why those bodies that are being brought within the bounds of the City of Dublin should be given the advantage that this proposes to give them. I do not understand why there should be a limit put to their rates when such a limit is not put to the rates of the other parts of the new city. There is no special reason for it. It is not intended evidently as an inducement to bring them in, because they are being brought in whether they like it or not. They are now practically within the city, or they will when this Bill is passed, and why this distinction should be made in their favour we cannot see. What reason is there for it? Neither is there any justice in this. As a matter of fact these bodies and the citizens in these and other places around the City of Dublin ought to have been charged their portion of the rates for the upkeep of the City of Dublin for many years. They have not borne their share, and the fact that they have not done so might seem to some people in the City of Dublin a reason for asking them to bear a greater burden now. That is a thing I would consider unjust, but they certainly ought to bear an equal charge with every citizen in Dublin under the new boundary arrangement. I do not see any reason whatsoever why the ratepayers in the old part of the city should not be allowed the privilage which it is proposed to give to these new areas.
On the broad basis I agree that there is not very great justice in stabilising these rates, if you look at the matter from the city point of view, in the areas that are being added to the city. The fact is that these areas have lower rates at present than the City of Dublin, and for a particular period it is desirable to avoid an immediate definite increase in the rates for these areas. The arrangements that have been made in connection with the new government of the city will bring about efficiencies and economies that will prevent any very serious jump of the rates on either Rathmines or Pembroke. It may not be very just in the case of areas that, according to public opinion and according to the general circumstances, should long since have been part of the city that they should now have their rates stabilised. Nevertheless the fact is their rates have been less than the city rates for some time past, and they are less than the city rates now. It has been the practice generally when new areas are added to the city to stabilise the rates for a particular period, and there does not seem to be any very strong reason for departing from that practice when bringing in Rathmines and Pembroke into the city area now. I feel rather justified in the proposal when I take into consideration how very little criticism there has been in regard to this proposal either from the city area or from the areas proposed to be added——
Criticism of this proposal or criticism of the amalgamation?
Criticism of the proposal in the Bill.
The proposal to limit?
The proposal to stabilise the rates on the new areas for five years.
There has not been very much opportunity to do that until now. If we had wished to deal with this principle on the Second Reading we would not have been allowed to deal with it. The closure would have been moved.
I am speaking of general public criticism. I was referring to criticism by the citizens of Dublin and the citizens of Pembroke and Rathmines.
Their eyes were fastened on the major defects in the Bill. The attempt to introduce this principle is a very damaging thing. The only justification for it is that the Bill is so unworkable that the economies hoped for will not be realised, and that, therefore, Pembroke and Rathmines being the new areas will not get what they had hoped for. I do not think that will be the case, and I believe that as a result of the inclusion these areas will share in the economies to be secured and they will benefit from them. I do not think that it is reasonable if they are to secure any benefit from the amalgamation that they should be absolved from bearing any of the burdens that the reorganisation of the city may, at the outset, entail. If the benefits are going to be shared mutually by the amalgamated city—that is, the old city and Pembroke and Rathmines— then I do not anticipate that there will be any increase in the rates. Nevertheless, in justice to the citizens of the existing city and to the citizens who will be brought in, I submit that Deputy Lemass' proposal should be accepted. It is an attempt to meet the Minister. In the very early stages, in the first couple of years, it is possible that there may be a slight increase in the rates, and we are prepared to concede something to Rathmines and Pembroke, but I certainly think that practically four years more than what Deputy Lemass suggests is much too long.
It is a concession for five years. As well as I can recollect, when the city was taking in other areas the rates were stabilised for ten years.
The bad old days.
Deputy Good would not say now if the city was taken in by those other areas?
If I start on that line I might say more than the Deputy would like to hear.
I would enjoy listening to Deputy Good's statement on it.
I know that Deputy O'Kelly had a long experience of the old Dublin Corporation, and I tell him that the sooner we forget all about it the better. One reason why there has been so little discussion on this matter, although there was opportunity, is that this particular section is evidence of reasonableness on the part of the Ministry and on the part of the Dublin Corporation. This section stabilises the rate in existence in 1929 for a period of five years. If the Deputy takes the average of the previous fifteen or twenty years of the rates in the two areas mentioned and the rates in the city he will find that the difference is a very marked one. I hope the difference will be much less in the future, but I am certainly not sufficient of an optimist to consider that the city rates will ever be down to what they are in Pembroke at the moment. I hope that, as this Bill has been more or less accepted on the basis of the assurance contained in this clause, the Minister will now be no party to going back on that assurance.
If there has been little talk about this particular section I think the reason is because the Pembroke and the Rathmines ratepayers felt that they were getting such a good bargain that the less they said about it the better. They would not raise a whisper of any kind about it in the Press or on the public platform.
I am afraid the Deputy must be out of touch with opinion in both Rathmines and Pembroke.
I am not very much out of touch with those areas. I live near enough, and I am a small ratepayer in one of the outlying areas. To some small extent I am affected by it. I see the point of view of the old city, and I think the Minister would have acted more justly if he had not made those provisions in regard to the areas now being taken in. I speak as a small ratepayer in one of the outlying areas, and I think it would be better if he had put an additional tax of some kind —not an inconsiderable tax—on Pembroke and Rathmines so as to help to make good the deficiency in relation to what they owe to the old city. If he had done that he would have been acting more justly to all concerned. Knowing, as I am sure they do know, and as Deputy Good knows, what they owe to the old city, the ratepayers of Rathmines and Pembroke have taken care that no one of their public men, and, indeed, nobody in the area, was so indiscreet as to call attention to this particular section in the Press or on the public platform. I think if the Minister puts Rathmines and Pembroke and the other sections that are now being joined to the old city on the same footing as the old city he will not be doing an injustice to Pembroke and Rathmines, and he will not be doing an injustice to the old city, but if he allows this proposal to go through he will certainly be doing a grave injustice to the old city.
I am afraid the Deputy's memory is not serving him truly on the present occasion when he speaks of what Rathmines and Pembroke owe to the City. I do not know if the Deputy is aware that there is in existence at the moment such a thing as a body dealing with the equalisation of rates. That body meets every ten years to adjust relations between the township and the city. At the moment under the Equalisation of Rates Act, Rathmines pays as its contribution to the city a sum of approximately £10,000 per annum.
Not half enough.
Pembroke pays £6,000 per annum. That is adjusted by an independent authority every ten years. In the face of that it is not quite correct to say that Rathmines and Pembroke have not paid their dues to the city in the past.
I ask the Minister not to accept this amendment. I am prepared to substantiate what Deputy Good has said. I am a member of the Pembroke Council and it is not quite correct for Deputy O'Kelly to say that the townships have made no protest because they are getting such a good bargain. I can assure him as a member of the Pembroke Council that the outlook there is, that if the people had their way they would prefer to be left alone. That has been the cry all the time. There were public meetings held in Rathmines Town Hall to protest against this Bill. I ask the Minister not to accept the amendment.
May I suggest that one of the Committee Rooms should be set at the disposal of the Dublin Deputies so that they can carry on their conversation in peace?
It is a most disorderly suggestion.
We are nearly finished now.
I wish to goodness you were finished.
Amendment 64 put and negatived.
Amendment 63 put and agreed to.
I move amendment 65:
In page 32, to add at the end of Section 60 two new sub-sections as follows:—
(2) When a rate is made by virtue of this section on the owner of an unoccupied hereditament or tenement and such hereditament or tenement is subsequently let by or on behalf of such owner and such rate or any part thereof is in arrear and unpaid, the rate collector by whom such rate is collectable may, in addition and without prejudice to any other remedy for the recovery of the amount of such rate so in arrear and unpaid, serve either personally or by post on the occupier of such hereditament or tenement a notice stating the said amount so in arrear and unpaid and requiring such occupier to pay to such rate collector or his successor in office all rent then due or thereafter to become due by him in respect of the said hereditament or tenement until the said amount is by such payment or otherwise discharged, and, upon such notice being so served, such rate collector or his successor in office shall have the exclusive right to recover, receive, and give a good discharged for all rent required by such notice to be paid to him.
(3) A rate made by virtue of this section on the owner of an unoccupied hereditament or tenement shall not be invalidated by any error or defect in the statement of the name of such owner or by the use of the description "the owner" without any name or addition, and every such rate shall be recoverable from such owner notwithstanding such error or defect or the use of such description.
This is designed to meet the case where the owner of an unoccupied tenement does not pay his rates and afterwards rents the tenement. It makes provision for the collection of the rates from the occupier.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 69, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 66:—
In page 32, Section 70 (1), line 10, after the figures "1861" to insert the words and figures "as amended by Section 91 of the Dublin Corporation Act, 1890."
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 67:—
In page 32 to delete Section 70 (2) and substitute a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Any hereditament or tenement in the city which, in the opinion of the City Council, is suitable for use as a dwelling for and is occupied by an artisan or a labourer shall, if the City Council so resolves, be deemed to be a small dwelling within the meaning of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928 (No. 4 of 1928), and that Act shall apply to such hereditament or tenement accordingly, but subject to the modification that in relation to such hereditament or tenement Section 10 of the said Act shall have effect as if the expression "eight-tenths" were substituted for the expression "nine-tenths" in sub-section (1) of that section.
Section 75 of the Dublin Corporation Act of 1890 empowers the Corporation to compound with the owner of certain classes of cottages occupied by artisans by which, on the payment of their rates inside a particular period, they get a reduction of 20 per cent. The section as at present drafted would prevent the Corporation giving the same facilities to new houses in future. The amendment gets rid of that, and it also makes an arrangement by which the houses are regarded as small dwellings within the Small Dwellings Act. They will be entitled after agreement by the Corporation to the same reduction for prompt payment as is secured under the Dublin Corporation Act of 1890 for the other houses.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 70, as amended, agreed to.
I beg to move amendment 68:—
In page 33, Section 74 (2), line 13. and also in sub-section (3), page 33, line 16, to delete the word "fourteen" and substitute the words "twenty-one."
This amendment provides for the statement of expenses, the annual budget, being in the hands of members of the council twenty-one days instead of fourteen days before the rates meeting so that more adequate time can be given for an examination of it.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 74, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 69:—
In page 33, before Section 75, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Whenever the City Council or the Borough Council considers that it is expedient that any particular matter relating to the administration of the city or the administration of the borough or to the administration of both the city and the borough should be referred to and discussed by a committee (in this section referred to as a joint committee of reference) appointed under this section, such council may resolve that such matter shall be referred to such committee accordingly.
(2) A joint committee of reference shall consist of—
(a) such number (not exceeding three) of members of the City Council as shall be nominated for the purpose by that council, and
(b) such number (not exceeding three) of members of the Borough Council as shall be nominated for the purpose by that council.
(3) Whenever the City Council or the Borough Council resolves that a matter shall be referred to a joint committee of reference, the following things shall be done by the said councils respectively, that is to say:—
(a) the council by which such resolution was passed shall nominate such members of such committee as it is entitled and thinks fit to nominate, and
(b) the last-named council shall communicate such resolution and nomination to the other of the said councils, and
(c) such other council shall at the next meeting after such communication is received by it nominate such members of such committee as it is entitled and thinks fit to nominate.
(4) When the City Council or the Borough Council has resolved that a matter be referred to a joint committee of reference and the several things mentioned in the foregoing sub-section of this section have been done, such matter shall be deemed to have been duly referred to the joint committee of reference nominated in pursuance of that sub-section, and such committee shall, as soon as conveniently may be, meet and discuss such matter and report the result of such discussion to the said councils respectively.
(5) All meetings of a joint committee of reference shall be held in the City Hall or other convenient place to be provided by the City Manager.
(6) It shall be the duty of the City Manager to provide from amongst the officers of the City Corporation all such secretarial assistance as may be required by any joint committee of reference.
(7) The City Manager and the Borough Manager respectively shall, whenever so required by a joint committee of reference, attend the meetings of such committee, and each of the said Managers shall be entitled to attend meetings of a joint committee of reference (whether he has or has not been required by such committee so to do) and to take part in the discussions at such meetings.
(8) All expenses (other than the provision of a place of meeting and secretarial assistance) incurred by a joint committee of reference shall be defrayed in the first instance by the City Corporation, and shall subsequently be apportioned between the City Corporation and the Borough Corporation in proportion to the rateable valuation of the city and the borough respectively, and so much of such expenses as is so apportioned to the Borough Corporation shall be paid by that Corporation to the City Corporation on demand.
This amendment is my contribution to that particular type of suggestion that says that there are matters of common interest between the city and the borough. It makes provision by which the council, either of the city or the borough, having come to the conclusion that a particular matter is a matter of common interest and ought to be discussed by the council of the city and borough, by the passage of a resolution can automatically bring about a situation by which an ad hoc committee would be set up, consisting of three members of the City Council and three members of the Borough Council, to report on the matter referred to them for consideration. It makes arrangements by which the expense of that particular committee will be borne and by which the secretarial work could be arranged for and premises provided.
I am well satisfield with the form in which the Minister has drafted this section. I quite approve of it.
There are two points of objection to this proposal. I think it does not go far enough. I do not see why it should be an ad hoc committee. I think there are very good grounds for having something in the nature of a permanent committee and I think it should not be confined to the borough and the City Council. I think there is a good argument in favour of taking in the county council and the Howth Urban Council as it will be. I had amendments down—I must congratulate Deputy Lemass for taking them and putting them down in his name—about the joint services board on the last occasion.
I think he only put them down after consultation with one of your members who told him he understood that you did not intend to put them down.
Mr. O'Connell
I did not hear anything about it. In any case it does not matter. So long as they are there it is all right. But the same idea which Deputy Lemass had was down for the Committee Stage. Now, as I say, the northern borough has disappeared but we have Howth Urban Council and the county council. It was plain from the discussion that took place here to-day that especially on the northern coastal area there will be matters of joint concern as between the Howth Urban Council, and the county council possibly and the city and the borough, new developments for instance in the Portmarnock area. Those would be matters that it would be well should be considered by a joint body of this kind. Therefore I think the county council and the Howth Urban Council might be taken in on this joint committee.
The second point I wish to suggest is that the body ought to be a permanent body set up under the Act not simply an ad hoc committee set up more or less haphazard when any matter would arise which would call for joint consideration. It should be a permanent joint committee to be set up at the beginning of the life of each of the councils. Such a body would take a wider interest in the affairs and there would be more co-ordination with the work they might do on this occasion and the work they would do on a future occasion. There would be more thought and more time to have a settled policy in their joint action than if a committee were set up to do one thing to-day and possibly a different committee set up to do something else another day. There would be no continuity of policy in the joint body and I think continuity of policy would be justified. I suggest to the Minister that these two points should be met in his proposals. He does go some distance to have joint action but I think if he amended his proposals in the way I suggest it would be more advantageous than the proposal he has here.
Can we not discuss amendment No. 70 (a) and amendment 70 (b)?
Mr. O'Connell
I think they are all the same.
70 is different from 70 (a) and 70 (b).
This is an amendment to amendment 69.
Let us deal with 69 alone.
This amendment the Minister has drafted goes a long way to meet the objections I voiced on the Second Reading. I am sorry that I differ from Deputy O'Connell. I really think that a committee ad hoc is more likely to have results than a permanent committee. A permanent committee with no object is likely to become a dead letter. A committee ad hoc with a definite purpose is very likely to be carefully set up to answer a definite demand from one or the other, and we would be more likely to get good fruit from the work of such a committee.
There is one thing Deputy O'Connell suggested which seems to be very attractive, and that is if we can bring in in some way the Howth Urban Council. I foresee that there will be a conflict of interests in that direction. There is a rather remarkable development on the North side. I think perhaps the Minister might consider that suggestion of Deputy O'Connell. It certainly seems an attractive and a wise one to me.
Would not the county council also be interested, as it surrounds all those districts? Apart from that—if I, as a rank outsider, may be allowed to refer to a Dublin Bill at all; I thought it was a special preserve from all the discussion I heard—if one body nominates will the other be compelled to nominate? Suppose a matter does arise which is really of importance to both, and that the Borough Council nominates a committee and the City Council refuses, what happens then?
Nothing in the world can happen.
The matter will not receive any joint consideration then.
I will deal with that matter when replying.
According to paragraph (c) of sub-section (3): "Such other council shall at the next meeting after such communication is received by it nominate such members of such committee as it is entitled and thinks fit to nominate."
That is to say, it is left optional to the other authority to refuse to participate in this joint reference to a committee by refusing to constitute a committee. I think if that situation is going to arise it will only arise in matters which seriously are of common concern to both or which are likely to be, because in a matter which so seriously concerns both authorities there is likely to be a very great conflict of interests. For that reason I think if one body decides that the matter is a subject for joint discussion the other body ought to be allowed to constitute a committee simply for the purpose of hearing what is to be said by one side on the matter, if for no other reason.
This amendment confines the body to the borough and the city—that is, the two large urbanised populations here—and I think that in this particular way we are examining what services can be jointly organised or jointly controlled, or what can generally be done in a joint way to help the urbanised populations around the cities here. We must concentrate on the city and the borough. If we bring in Howth, or if we bring in the county council, then we extend very much the possibility of having the body called together. Howth may want the body called together to develop the amenities of the pier and argue that the citizens of Dublin use it, and all that. This is really intended for sound practical purposes. For that reason, acting on the theory that the kernel of the service for which there is any case for acting in a conjoint way lies in the services which supply our main urban population, we confine it to the borough and the city. An ad hoc body will, I came to the conclusion, give you a better body. If you set up a permanent body you may not set up the best possible body for dealing with any matter that may come up. But if you are discussing roads, water or cleaning as a conjoint matter the two bodies are in a position to select the best and most experienced people to consider the matter according to what the particular matter is. That is the reason for not putting up a permanent body. I think the very fact of setting up an ad hoc body will mean that only important matters really worthy of discussion will be considered, but if you have a permanent body you may easily have a position in which footy matters would be referred to them without very much result. What we are really after is to see what services there are that can be regarded as conjoint services.
In reply to the argument that one body may ask for this committee to be set up and the other body may refuse you cannot do anything if that happens. The body that wants to have it examined can naturally examine it themselves. All this conceives a joint understanding on the part of the City Council and the Borough Council. What has been said here so much and what has been said in the public Press is true, that there are possibly some things that are of joint interest. I cannot imagine either of the two councils refusing to discuss a matter. If the question does arise and there is a refusal to discuss it then the tribunal which is set up in a detached way by the Minister for Local Government, of which one will be for five years and another inside the five year period after that, can take cognisance of the case made by the council that considered the matter. They will take the whole situation into review and the matter can be settled there. I cannot conceive any machinery by which you can force an unwilling council to come into a committee and discuss a particular matter with any kind of a hope that you are going to get a harmonious arrangement out of it.
I do not think the Minister's objections to including the Urban Council of Howth are very substantial. The only real objection that there would be in substance would be if he could say that there were no common interests on which they might meet on a joint committee. He did not attempt to say that. I do not think he could in view of the situation as we know it. I do not think it meets the situation to simply say that Howth may want to discuss some footy questions like the extension of the pier. I do not know why he should assume that Howth Urban Council would want to do something foolish and that the City Borough would be altogether above doing something foolish.
There is a Commissioner in charge of Howth.
Mr. O'Connell
The council will soon be established. I do not think that is a sound objection. If there are matters of common interest between the Urban Council of Howth and the city an arrangement might be made whereby only those two bodies or three bodies that would have a common interest would meet to set up their committee. An arrangement might be made with the Urban Council of Howth and the City Council would want to discuss one particular thing in which the southern borough would not be interested or where the southern borough might want to discuss a thing in which Howth might not be interested. I suggest there is no good reason by which an arrangement could not be made whereby Howth and the city would discuss by means of a joint committee matters which are of common interest to both. As Deputy Fahy pointed out, there would be a case too in which the county council would have an interest in coming in.
Of course, my own approach to this matter is that this committee is unnecessary, because there is no reason why the council of the borough would not discuss with the council of the city, or vice versa, anything they wanted to discuss, apart altogether from this machinery, and there is no reason why Howth Council would not discuss with the City Council anything it had to discuss. We are putting the joint services idea on a special plane by setting up this particular committee, and it can only arise on a special plane as between the two very big urbanised populations here. There is plenty of other machinery for dealing with anything as far as discussion goes or as far as arrangement goes as between either rural area with the county council contiguous to the city and Howth.
I have not very much to hope for from this committee. I certainly do think if there is anything of value in it, it depends upon its constitution being compulsory if one of the bodies decide that there is a matter of sufficient importance and of common concern both to the borough and the city for reference to it. Therefore, I think, if the section goes through in its present form, and if it is still left optional to one of the bodies to take away the purpose of the section by refusing to nominate members of the committee, the section will be valueless. It is precisely in this case, where one of the bodies is indisposed to consult with the other, that the committee can be of any service, because it is only where there is that indisposition to meet that if the representatives on both sides can be brought together under a common chairman with the matter of reference before them before they start that any good result will arise from the committee. If the Minister is going to allow the proposal to go in its present form and permit one of the bodies to defeat the whole purpose of the section, then I think it will be better to withdraw it.
Does Deputy MacEntee suggest some other word for the word "shall" where the word "shall" is used in (a), (b) and (c)—"such other council shall at the next meeting after such communication is received by it nominate such members of such committee as it is entitled and thinks fit to nominate." The words "thinks fit" refer to members.
I thought it had reference to numbers. Suppose they think fit to appoint none. I think there is a fault in the drafting.
I think Deputy MacEntee is mistaken if he thinks it is possible to compel co-operation by legislation. It is possible to hope for co-operation and to do everything we can to make co-operation easy or possible. That is what this amendment sets out to do, but if the two or either of the two is dead-set against co-operation we cannot enforce it by legislation. I think, on the other hand, if we try to make this proposed board too wide, and hope to do too much, all we shall do is to prevent its doing anything at all. I think, as the Minister said, we have attempted to put this on a special plane whereby the southern coastal borough and the city can deal with these joint matters in this special way. If you do widen that you will spoil the whole idea.
I am of opinion that paragraph (c) will have to be redrafted. Does the Minister, by paragraph (c) intend to leave to either of these bodies the option of nominating members or not as they think fit, because, as the section stands, if they thought fit not to nominate any members they would be entitled to do that?
The drafting section is supposed to impose a statutory duty on them. It is possible that they could be mandamused into setting up the three persons, but whether that would lead to anything but a meeting and a burst-up I do not know. It is better, I think, to leave one council or the other in the position of failing to carry out a statutory duty than to force a meeting by means of a mandamus that would simply bring about a burst-up and prejudice the subsequent discussion of the matter. I do not think we need look for any unreasonableness either on the part of the city council or of the borough council on anything connected with the setting up of a committee arranged for by statute. That committee is supposed to deal with matters of common interest to both the city and the borough.
The difficulty that I see is, that at the end of a certain period the Minister proposes to review the relations between the borough and the city. I have a feeling that one of the effects of that proviso will be that the borough, in order to safeguard itself against subsequent absorption, will endeavour to differentiate itself as much as possible from the city: that, therefore, in a number of important matters, it may desire to evade any consultation with the city which might compromise the future existence of the borough. For that reason, I can see that there will be a certain urge on the part of the borough not to set up this committee: to keep itself as aloof as possible from the city. It is in view of the Minister's own proviso to bring the relations of the city and the borough under review at certain stated periods that I think this matter of the proviso should be made to compel consultation upon certain important matters to take place between the borough and the city whenever one or the other of these two bodies consider it necessary that such consultation should take place.
It does not appear to me that the amendment forces these bodies to co-operate. That, I think, is the fundamental weakness in Deputy MacEntee's proposal. You can compel a body to nominate representatives to meet another body, but to compel joint representatives to co-operate in some common object is hoping for too much. Even if they do not co-operate, but if they meet in accordance with this proposal I am quite satisfied that even that fact will be an advantage in this way: that when this other independent tribunal meets every five years and considers matters of common interest, to a certain extent a way will be paved, and public opinion will be formed on certain matters that will come before the tribunal. In elucidating these matters, and in drawing attention to them, this particular committee will serve a useful purpose. Judging from one's own experience, if one party to this tribunal refuses to proceed or to carry on the ordinary courtesies of debate, I think that in itself will have rather a damaging effect when the subject comes before the tribunal ultimately. In view of all the circumstances, I think it is unlikely that what Deputy MacEntee anticipates will happen.
What I would like to say with regard to this amendment—this is also for the purpose of discussing Deputy Lemass's amendment—is that we have to take it that both councils will be always ready to come together to discuss what one or the other puts up as matters of common interest. I expect they will always be ready to do that. I suppose we may take it that as representing the people of the city and of the borough they will take a very keen interest in these matters. The Lord Mayor of the city might think it very undesirable that he would go into committee to discuss the matter from the very beginning; that if he did so he might be driven to take up a particular line, and therefore to a certain extent might prejudice a detached discussion of the matter in committee. He might feel that he would be prejudicing the position of the council in discussing the matter in a detached way when the full result of the committee's investigations and decisions were placed before it. There is nothing to prevent the Lord Mayor of the city being appointed on the committee. I am sure if he were on the committee he would act as chairman. I think it inadvisable that he should be on the committee. It might easily arise, from the point of view of the council and of the borough, that it would be undesirable particularly for himself to have the Lord Mayor on the committee.
I must say that I cannot see the Minister's point of view at all. It seems to me that the Lord Mayor should be the natural link between the city council and the borough council in these matters relating to joint concerns, and in which consultation is necessary. My view on this matter is that the proposed consultative council will be of very little practical use. My agreement with it is because of the fact that I think it is advisable that the suggestion of joint interests between the two councils is being introduced into this Bill by this proposal and is not in the Bill otherwise. The idea to make the Lord Mayor automatically chairman of this committee means that the seniority as it were of the city and particularly of the Lord Mayor of the city is thus established. I hope to see the day when the two councils will be amalgamated into one. It is because I think that this committee sets the pointer in that direction that it is acceptable, and for that reason only, and not because, as I have said, that I think it will be of any practical use.
It is necessary also that the pointer should be set in the direction of the seniority of the city, and by the appointment of the Lord Mayor automatically as chairman. I cannot see how the appointment of the Lord Mayor could possibly damage the interest of the city or prevent useful work being done by any of these committees if set up. I do not think that the Lord Mayor should be detached on any question that concerns the interests of the ratepayers of the city, nor do I think that the city council should elect persons with a detached view on something affecting the interests of the ratepayers of the City of Dublin. I take it that we will have on that committee three individuals representing the interests of the ratepayers of the borough and three individuals representing the interests of the ratepayers of the city, and that their object will be to see how far common action can be taken by the representatives both of the city and of the borough to help the interests of both. In that matter the Lord Mayor should not be a detached person. He should be a partisan striving to do the best he could for the people he represents.
Certainly, detached as to the means by which that could be done.
He will not become any more or any less detached by reason of the fact that he would be a person who was presiding at the committee. I would not press the amendment if there is any serious objection to it, but I think it is desirable there should be somebody appointed who would automatically take the chair at these committees, and that representatives of the borough and the council should not come together and wrangle as to who should take the chair, and as to which was the more important body, and whether there should be an alteration in the chairmanship, or anything of that kind. It is desirable that somebody should be indicated as chairman, a senior representative of the council, or somebody of the kind. It seems to me the most desirable person is the Lord Mayor.
The Deputy says he does not want to press the amendment. I certainly do not want to press my view as against the view of the House, but I feel that an ad hoc committee set up to discuss a particular matter should examine the question in an absolutely detached way, that is, each section should bear the interests of the people as a whole in mind. That goes without saying. I feel that the presence of the Lord Mayor as chairman might easily bring the city council into a difficult position in the matter by bringing him into discussion at the earlier stages.
[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]
The fact that the committee will be meeting in the premises of the city council, and that its work will be facilitated by the staff of the city council, should, in my opinion, mean that the chairman of the city council should also be chairman of the committee.
I think Deputy Lemass is taking this matter too lightly. He is regarding the joint committee merely as a symbol and a safeguard of unity, and he wants the Lord Mayor to sit in the chair as representing the sovereignty of the city. It should be left to the discretion of the committee to elect their own chairman. The committee will have different questions coming before it, and it would be necessary to pick a chairman carefully. There is nothing as it stands to prevent the Lord Mayor from being chairman, but I think the fact of the Lord Mayor being always chairman would detract rather than add to his dignity.
Amendment 70, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 69 agreed to.
I move:—
70b. In page 33, before Section 75, to insert a new section as follows:—
"The Conjoint Services Board shall consist of the Lord Mayor and three other members of the City Council, the Mayor, and one other member of the Southern Borough Council, and the Mayor."
70c. In page 33, before Section 75, to insert a new section as follows:—
"On a day to be appointed by the Minister for the purposes all the powers, functions and duties of the City Corporation and the Southern Borough Corporation, in respect of the following matters, that is to say:—
(a) water supply;
(b) drainage;
(c) housing,
shall become and be powers, rights and duties of the Conjoint Services Board."
70d. In page 33, before Section 75, to insert a new section as follows:—
"It shall be the duty of the Conjoint Services Board to consider and advise the Councils of the City and the Southern Borough upon any matter which appears to it to affect in any way the welfare of the City and the Borough in common and which is brought before the Board by any of its members."
70c. In page 33, before Section 75, to insert a new section as follows:—
"The Councils of the City and the Southern Borough may by resolution in equivalent terms agree that powers, rights and duties of the respective Corporations in addition to those hereinbefore specified shall become powers, rights and duties of the Conjoint Services Board, and upon the passage of such resolutions by the Councils the powers, rights and duties specified therein shall become powers, rights and duties of the Conjoint Services Board upon a day appointed for the purpose by the Minister."
I might explain that these amendments are identical in terms with the amendments which appeared in the name of Deputy O'Connell on the Committee Stage. I did not put them down with the intention of stealing Deputy O'Connell's ideas in any way. I was anxious that the projected Conjoint Services Board should be introduced in the Bill, and I waited until the last possible moment to enable Deputy O'Connell to table the amendments in his own name. It was only when I was informed that the time was running out yesterday evening I tabled the amendments, and even then I told the official responsible that if at the last moment Deputy O'Connell came in with the amendments mine should be withdrawn.
I think these amendments were circulated yesterday.
No. These were only handed in yesterday.
Mr. O'Connell
The earlier ones were.
No. The amendments circulated earlier in the day were my own amendments for which I take full responsibility. I want the House to understand that I am not responsible for the drafting of these amendments, and if there is anything wrong the fault is Deputy O'Connell's. The project outlined in these amendments is the establishment of a Conjoint Services Board. We have pointed out here in the discussions on the previous stages of this Bill that the ratepayers of both the borough and the city areas can secure substantial advantages by unification in the control of the three services over the whole area. There is in fact at the present time a unified water supply, the City Corporation selling water to the existing townships on the southern side at rates fixed by agreement or otherwise from time to time.
There are three drainage systems, in fact four, in operation in the area: the Dublin main drainage, the main drainage of Pembroke and Rathmines, the drainage of Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock, and the Dalkey system. The only improvement that could be effected in relation to drainage by the establishment of the conjoint board would be the saving that would result from unfied control, including the unification of technical staffs, equipment, and things of that kind.
It would, undoubtedly, be desirable to have one main drainage system for the whole area, but that could only be achieved at considerable cost. The existing drainage systems for Dun Laoghaire, Blackrock and Dalkey are, however, capable of very considerable improvement, which improvement could not be carried out by the new Southern Borough, because the cost on the ratepayers in the area would be very considerable, and, as far as I know, its borrowing powers are very nearly exhausted. The new Southern Borough will not be large enough in population to secure trustee status for its stock and, consequently, even if its borrowing powers were not exhausted or almost exhausted, it might find difficulty in raising money to effect improvements in a service of that kind.
In relation to housing we had a more or less prolonged discussion on the Committee Stage, and divergent views were expressed on both sides of the House. It seems to us that the housing requirements of the citizens in both districts could be more rapidly and more economically provided for if there was unified control. The Minister appeared to think that the housing requirements of the citizens of the Southern Borough might be neglected if control was exercised from the City Hall in Dublin. This is a matter upon which differences of opinion cannot be resolved by debate here. The main reason why we are anxious to get the Conjoint Services Board established is because it would obviously strike the high road towards the establishment of the one council for the whole area, which is the ideal that, in our view, should be aimed at. The main services of water supply, drainage and housing would be handed over immediately to this Board if established, and other services could be transferred to it from time to time, so that ultimately the need for the existence of the separate corporations would have ended, they could be abolished, and you would then have the one corporation for both areas. The original proposal, of course, proposed to include the suggested Howth Borough, so that in the long run we would have in operation the proposal of the Greater Dublin Commission for the whole of the suggested Greater Dublin area.
Apart from the fact that the establishment of this Board would make the ultimate establishment of one council for the whole of Dublin city inevitable, it would immediately confer undoubted benefits on the ratepayers of the areas concerned, inasmuch as they would probably get the essential services—the services handed over to the Board—conducted with greater efficiency and at less cost than with duplicated authority and duplicated control. It could be argued that the establishment of the Southern Borough would be a particularly futile proceeding if it was not proposed to give that Borough control over these services of water supply, drainage and housing, and I have no answer to that argument, because I think the establishment of the Southern Borough is futile in any case, and that it will not be very long before it will be abolished and the area included in the city. Apart altogether from that, whatever political reasons operated in the establishment of the Southern Borough will undoubtedly continue to exist. The ratepayers should not, however, be deprived of the advantage that would come from the establishment of the conjoint board. I confidently propose the first of these amendments, on which a decision will be taken, and I hope that the Dáil will see its way to accept it.
After setting up a council and arranging to appoint a Manager to deal with the affairs of the borough, and setting up a council and appointing a manager to deal with the affairs of the city, I can quite understand Deputy Lemass's want of anxiety to stand over these proposals, but I think the House will accept it that after doing that we will not, as a body, recommend the setting up of a Conjoint Services Board to take over the control of housing, drainage and water, and to tell the new Dublin Council anything else it might think of about the welfare of the city generally. I am very strongly opposed to setting up any body over the Council of the City of Dublin, and any conjoint board that would deal with these matters would have to be a conjoint board that would be devised and recommended by the Council of the City of Dublin specially, because I think that if the main control of local government development is taken away from the Council of the City of Dublin at this particular stage it would only lead to a terrible want of reality and create an amount of chaos.
The new City Council will have a very considerable amount of work to do in the city; the new Borough Council will have a very considerable amount of work to do in the borough, and if they have anything to say with regard to a conjoint board and the handing over of services to such a board later they will have five years to examine the matter, and they can make any representations they like to the tribunal that will go into the matter in five years' time. But certainly now is not the time to set up anything like this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
In page 34, Section 75, line 2, to delete the words "with the consent of the Minister."
This amendment relates to the deputy Manager. It is proposed that while the Manager is on vacation or is, through illness, absent from the city or the borough, or is suspended from the performance of his duties, temporarily incapable of exercising his powers and functions, a deputy Manager may be appointed for the duration of that period of incapacity, and the section says that he may with the consent of the Minister be removed at any time during such vacation or incapacity. The amendment proposes to delete the words "with the consent of the Minister." I think that the Council should at least be given the right to remove a temporary Manager. The Minister has refused to give them any right whatever over the permanent Manager, even to the fixing of his salary. It is unlikely that the power will ever be exercised, and therefore the Minister would be quite safe in conceding it.
This amendment 71 and amendment 72 are related to the same thing, because in amendment 72 the Deputy proposes that in any circumstances when the Manager is not available the power of nominating the deputy Manager should lie with the Lord Mayor. Our proposal is that if the Manager is going away on holidays, or in such circumstances as he can foresee his incapacity, he shall, after consultation with the Lord Mayor, nominate the deputy Manager. I think that is reasonable and I do not intend to depart from it. Amendment 71 proposes that the deputy Manager, having been appointed, whether by the Manager, after consultation with the Lord Mayor, or in the other circumstances where the Manager has not done that and where the Lord Mayor has appointed the deputy Manager, that he can be removed without the authority of the Minister. I think that if such a critical state of affairs existed that it was necessary to remove the deputy Manager, the Minister certainly ought to be made aware of these circumstances, and it would not be reasonable that even a deputy Manager should be removed without the circumstances being drawn to the notice of the Minister and the consent of the Minister obtained.
I would like to ask the Minister why the Parliamentary draftsman clings to the word "incapable." It has got a sinister meaning in that respect. I suggest that the word he wants is "incapacity."
He might not be incapacitated if he was on holidays.
As I said before, it is a sinister and ambiguous word. A better word could be found.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79 put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 36, before Section 80 (b), to insert three new paragraphs as follows:—
"(b) the fourteenth day after the day which is the day of election for the purposes of this Act shall be substituted throughout the Act of 1927 for the 1st day of April, 1927, except where that date occurs in the expression ‘the local financial year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1927,' and
"(c) the local financial year commencing next after the day which is the day of election for the purposes of this Act shall be substituted throughout the Act of 1927 for the local financial year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1927, and
"(d) Section 10 of the Act of 1927 shall apply to the Council of the County of Dublin, and"
This is a drafting amendment fixing certain dates in connection with the application of the Acts of 1925 and 1927.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 36, to add at the end of Section 80 a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) On and after the fourteenth day after the day of election the Secretary of the County Council shall act as and be the chief executive officer of the Board of Health."
This amendment proposes that the Secretary of the County Council shall be appointed Secretary of the Board of Health when the Board of Health is appointed in the County of Dublin. It arises out of strong representations made by the County Council that this would give them a better opportunity of co-ordinating and controlling the general work of the county. I think it is an admirable suggestion.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 80, as amended, put and agreed to. Sections 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 86 put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 39, Section 87 (1), to delete all the words after the word "appoint," line 15, and substitute the words—"in accordance with the principle of proportional representation for the purposes of this section a Committee (to be known as the Rathdown Union Committee) consisting of such number of persons not being less than five, as the said council thinks proper."
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that all sections of the council will be adequately represented on the Rathdown Union Committee. I think that owing to certain circumstances the practice has grown up of regarding boards of health, whose functions are to a certain extent analogous to those of the Union committees which are being established under this Bill, as the perquisite of the political majority of the members of the county council, and that every endeavour is made, on one side possibly as much as on the other, to pack these boards of health, because it is thought that a certain amount of political advantage is to be secured from the distribution of home help. I do not think that is quite a good practice. I do not see any way in which it can be prevented except by providing that these Union committees will be representative of the council as a whole, and that persons nominated to them will represent all the views of the members of the county council so far as they can in reason be represented. The principal purpose here is, first of all, to secure as far as this amendment is concerned—and also amendment 76, because there is a misprint in that— that the number of people nominated will be sufficient to ensure that representation will be given; and, secondly, that the method of nominating them is according to the principle of proportional representation, which will ensure that every section in the council would be represented on the Union committees.
At the present moment there is a board of guardians in Rathdown union area and a board of guardians in Balrothery union area, and the proposals in Sections 87 and 88 are to enable the council to appoint persons to carry out the duties of these boards of guardians in these areas, as a temporary measure, until the necessary legislation is introduced to deal with the general poor law situation in Co. Dublin, which must be before March, 1931, arising, I think, out of the last Act that was passed. For that reason we leave it open to the county council to select in any way it wishes persons to carry on this work in a temporary way. The fact that there are guardians there engaged in this class of work, and that some of them will not be members of the county council, but that the council may wish nevertheless to have some of them associated with their own representatives in carrying on this work, leads me to leave the matter the way it is. The county council is given complete discretion to select persons to act like commissioners, and for that reason I anticipate they will take some of the persons at present acting as guardians, if not the whole body, as the county council may easily require to do. I do not accept the idea of there being sections in the county council that want to be represented one way or another in Balrothery area or in Rathdown area. If there are such sections, it is open to the county council to make their selection by a system of proportional representation if they wish. But I do not think we should bind the county council by a system of election in selecting persons in the particular circumstances which exist in Co. Dublin. I am opposed to amendments 75 and 76, and I think Deputy MacEntee will understand that it may be very much more satisfactory if the county council should be given a free hand, in view of the fact that there are guardians there already that they will probably reappoint.
My opposition is somewhat changed and modified by the statement of the Minister that Sections 87 and 88 are temporary provisions, and in view of that I am perfectly prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
In page 39, before Section 89, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The secretary of the county council may from time to time amend any rate or assessment in any rate book kept by the county council by inserting therein the name of any person who ought to have been rated or by striking out the name of any person who ought not to have been rated or by raising or reducing the sum at which a person has been rated or by making such other amendment therein as will make such rate or assessment conformable to the provisions of any Act for the time being in force in regard to the making of such rate or assessment.
(2) Every person aggrieved by any such alteration shall have the same right of appeal therefrom as he would have had if his name had been originally inserted in the said rate or assessment and no such alteration had been made therein, and as regards such person the rate shall be considered to have been made at the time when he received notice of such amendment.
This is to enable the county secretary to do what the Bill arranges that the City Manager is able to do, namely, to correct in a simple way errors in the rate book where errors have arisen.
Amendment put and agreed to.
New section ordered to be inserted in the Bill.
I move:—
In page 39, Section 89, to delete sub-section (2).
This is not a very important amendment. The section refers to the amount that public bodies, particularly the Municipal Council of Dublin, can be charged by the Local Government Department for the annual audit and it puts a limit on the amount to be charged. The proposal in the Bill is that this section shall cease to have effect in the city and county. In that way, I take it, there would be no limit to the amount that might be charged by the Department for the annual audit. It has been represented to me by some of those connected with the Municipal Council that that might be interfered with, that it is always the practice in legislation like this to put a limit to the amount that may be charged. The abolition of the limit might leave it open to the Department to be unfair in this regard and the Council would have no redress. I think that if the Minister consulted his officials they would suggest a limit of some kind and have it agreed to in the Bill. Those concerned would be in a position to judge what would be a fair amount to charge for the time—I suppose considerable time—given by the Local Government Auditor in auditing the accounts for Dublin City. Additional time would be necessary in future in view of the extended nature of the work and I think that some limit could be agreed on and inserted in the Bill. To leave the matter in the air in future, as it would be if this section were adopted, might lead to unfairness to the city.
The position is that under the Act of 1898 a sum of £100 is placed as a limit beyond which a county council will not be charged for its audit. That was over thirty years ago. With the enlarged city the position would be changed. I think that it takes the auditor nine months to carry out the audit in connection with the Dublin Corporation. His salary would be about £700 or £800 and the intention is that the city ought to pay for the cost of the audit but no more than that. In the same way in regard to the county, the county should pay for the cost of audit but no more. I do not think that a safeguard is necessary in regard to the amount that will be charged. I could, however, consider that and, if it were necessary to put in an amendment later, it might be managed in the Seanad that the city or county should be charged the cost of the audit, but I think it is unreasonable that the standard of £100 fixed in 1898 for auditing the city accounts should operate now in connection with the extended city. I would like the section to stand and I can have the matter further considered and, if necessary, in the Seanad introduce a qualifying clause. I take it that the Deputy agrees that a sum of £100 is not reasonable now.
I quite agree that a figure fixed thirty years ago is not equitable now as values have changed very considerably, but at the same time I think that the Minister will agree that, as it has been the custom to limit the amount, the suggestion of those in authority that a maximum amount should be fixed is a reasonable one. As the Minister promises to consider the suggestion, I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
I move:—
In pages 39 and 40 to delete Section 90 and substitute a new section as follows:—
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, every statute and every order made under statutory authority whereby, immediately before the appointed day, the City Corporation is required to supply water for use in the urban district of Dun Laoghaire, or whereby a price is fixed for such supply or whereby such price may be varied from time to time shall have effect, on and after the appointed day, with the substitution therein of the Borough and Borough Corporation for the said urban district and the council thereof.
(2) Every provision contained in any statute or order whereby, immediately before the appointed day, the City Corporation is required to supply water for use in any of the coastal urban districts other than the urban district of Dun Laoghaire shall, save as hereinafter otherwise provided, cease to have effect on and after the appointed day.
(3) The delivery of a supply of water by the City Corporation to the Borough Corporation for use in the Borough in pursuance of this section shall be made separately in respect of each of the several areas forming at the passing of this Act the respective coastal urban districts and such delivery in respect of each such area shall be made at the place at which the City Corporation is, immediately before the appointed day, required by law to deliver water for use in such area.
This is a redraft.
Does it bind the City Corporation to give any greater quantity than the aggregate of all the supplies now given separately to the coastal urban districts?
What it particularly does is to safeguard the position in regard to the point of delivery. I take it that it safeguards the supply up to the agreement that has been entered into.
Does it impose any further obligation on the City Council?
No.
Amendment put and agreed to.
New section ordered to be inserted in the Bill.
I move:—
In page 40, Section 91, line 11, after the word "agree" to insert the words "to do all or any of the following things, that is to say," and to delete the word "and" and substitute the words "renew or."
This is just to clear up the position and to make it clear that, as well as laying down and maintaining, the renewal of pipes can be undertaken.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 91 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
I move:—
In page 40, before Section 95, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister shall, on such two occasions as he shall think proper within the limits hereinafter mentioned and also on such and so many (if any) subsequent occasions as he shall think proper, appoint by order such number of such persons as he shall on each such occasion think fit to constitute and be a tribunal for the purposes of this section, and shall by each such order nominate one of the members of the tribunal thereby appointed to be the chairman of such tribunal and appoint such person as he thinks fit to act as secretary to such tribunal and appoint a convenient day, hour, and place for the first meeting of such tribunal.
(2) The first appointment of a tribunal under this section shall be made within five years after the passing of this Act and the second such appointment shall be made not less than three years after the appointment of the first such tribunal and not more than ten years after the passing of this Act.
(3) It shall be the duty of every tribunal appointed under this section to consider, make recommendations, and report to the Minister with all convenient speed whether any and, if any, what alterations are then necessary or desirable in the boundaries of the City and the County respectively and in the several local administrative areas within the County, and also whether any and, if any, what general adjustments of the financial relations of the City, the County, and the several local administrative areas within the County are then necessary or desirable, and also whether any and, if any, what arrangements are then necessary or desirable for the establishment of joint local government or public health services for the common benefit of any two or more of the following areas, that is to say, the City, the County, and the several local administrative areas within the County, and for the joint control of such services by the several local authorities having jurisdiction in, the respective areas benefited by such services.
(4) Every report made by a tribunal appointed under this section shall be forthwith laid before each House of the Oireachtas by the Minister.
(5) A tribunal appointed under this section shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath or otherwise and for compelling the production of documents as are vested in the High Court or a Judge thereof in respect of the trial of an action, and a summons signed by the chairman of the tribunal shall be equivalent to and have the like effect as a formal process issued by the High Court for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents.
(6) If any person—
(a) on being duly summoned as a witness before a tribunal appointed under this section makes default in attending, or
(b) being in attendance as a witness refuses to take an oath legally required by such tribunal to be taken, or to produce any document in his power or control legally required by such tribunal to be produced by him, or to answer any question to which such tribunal may legally require an answer, or
(c) does any other thing which would, if such tribunal were a Court of Justice having power to commit for contempt of Court, be contempt of such Court,
the chairman of such tribunal may certify the offence of that person under his hand to the High Court, and that Court may, after such inquiry as it thinks proper to make, punish or take steps for the punishment of that person in like manner as if he had been guilty of contempt of the said Court.
(7) A witness before a tribunal appointed under this section shall be entitled to the same immunities and privileges as if he were a witness before the High Court.
(8) The costs and expenses incurred by or in relation to a tribunal appointed under this section shall, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Minister, be paid to the Minister by such of the following bodies, that is to say, the City Corporation, the County Council, and the several local authorities whose functional areas are within the County, as such tribunal shall direct, and the proportion of such costs and expenses so payable by any such body may be recovered from such body by the Minister as a civil debt."
This provides for the setting up of the tribunal which we have discussed. It will be set up in five years' time, and then in not less than another five years, and after that, as occasionally required by the Minister.
Amendment put and agreed to.
New section ordered to stand part of the Bill.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
I move:—
In page 42, First Schedule, to insert in their appropriate alphabetical positions in that portion of Part I. which relates to the North Dublin Rural District the following names of Townlands and of the District Electoral Divisions in which they are respectively situate, that is to say:—
|
Name of Townland. |
District Electoral Division in which situate. |
|
Bettyville |
Howth Rural. |
|
Charleville |
Howth Rural. |
|
Foxlands |
Howth Rural. |
|
Maryville |
Howth Rural. |
|
Raheny, North |
Howth Rural. |
|
Raheny, South |
Howth Rural. |
|
Sibylhill |
Drumcondra Rural. |
and to add at the end of Part II. the following paragraphs:—
That portion of the Townland of Harmonstown in the District Electoral Division of Drumcondra Rural and the Rural District of North Dublin bounded as follows, that is to say:—
Starting at a point on the boundary between the Townlands of Furry park and Harmonstown, in the District Electoral Division of Drumcondra Rural, where the said boundary intersects the northwestern fence of the Great Northern Railway, proceeding in a north-easterly direction along the said fence for a distance of 653 yards to the intersection of the said fence with the boundary between the Townlands of Harmonstown, in the District Electoral Division of Drumcondra Rural, and Glebe, in the District Electoral Division of Howth Rural, thence south-easterly, southerly, south-easterly, south-westerly, westerly, north-westerly, south-westerly and northerly along the boundary of the said Townland of Harmonstown to the starting point.
That portion of the Townland of Glebe, in the District Electoral Division of Howth Rural, and the Rural District of North Dublin bounded as follows, that is to say:—
Starting at a point on the boundary between the Townland of Harmonstown, in the District Electoral Division of Drumcondra Rural, and the Townland of Glebe, in the District Electoral Division of Howth Rural, where the said boundary intersects the north-western fence of the Great Northern Railway, proceeding in a north-easterly direction along the said fence for a distance of 370 yards to the intersection of the said fence with the boundary between the Townlands of Glebe and Ballyhoy, in the District Electoral Division of Howth Rural, thence south-easterly, southerly, south-westerly, north-westerly, northerly, and north-westerly along the boundary of the said Townland of Glebe to the starting point.
That portion of the Townland of Ballyhoy in the District Electoral Division of Howth Rural bounded as follows, that is to say:—
Starting at a point on the boundary between the Townlands of Glebe and Ballyhoy in the District Electoral Division of Howth Rural where the said boundary intersects the northern fence of the Great Northern Railway, proceeding in a north-easterly direction along the said fence for a distance of 532 yards to the intersection of the said fence with the boundary between the Townlands of Ballyhoy and Raheny South, in the District Electoral Division of Howth Rural, thence south-easterly, south-westerly, northerly, and north-westerly along the boundary of the said Townland of Ballyhoy to the starting point.
That portion of the Townland of Snug in the District Electoral Division of Howth Rural and the Rural District of North Dublin bounded as follows, that is to say:—
Starting at a point on the boundary between the Townlands of Snug on one side and Ballyhoy and Raheny South on the other side where the said boundary intersects the northern fence of the Great Northern Railway, proceeding in an easterly direction along the said fence for a distance of 225 yards to the intersection of the said fence with the boundary between the Townlands of Snug and Raheny North, thence southerly, westerly, and north-westerly along the boundary of the said Townland of Snug to the starting point.
That portion of the Townland of Kilbarrack Upper in the District Electoral Division of Howth Rural and the Rural District of North Dublin bounded as follows, that is to say:—
Starting at a point on the boundary between Raheny North and Kilbarrack Upper, in the District Electoral Division of Howth Rural, where the said boundary touches the Townlands of Foxlands in the District Electoral Division of Howth Rural, and proceeding in a northerly direction along the said boundary for a distance of 433 yards, and continuing in the same direction for a distance of 158 yards along the eastern boundary of the holding now occupied by Patrick Cullen, thence easterly for a distance of 476 yards, and north-easterly for a distance of 483 yards along the northern boundary of the holding occupied by the said Patrick Cullen to the centre of Kilbarrack Lane, thence along the centre of the said lane for a distance of 76 yards to the boundary between the said Townland of Kilbarrack Upper and the Urban District of Howth, thence south-easterly, south-westerly, north-westerly along the boundary of the said Townland of Kilbarrack Upper to the starting point.
This is to insert in the Schedule the townlands which form the corridor extending from the City boundary to the Howth boundary.
Amendment put and agreed to.
First Schedule as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
The following amendments stood in the name of Deputy MacEntee:—
In page 44, Second Schedule, to delete the references to premises occupied by the "Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland."
In page 44, Second Schedule, to delete the references to premises occupied by the "Royal College of Physicians in Ireland."
In page 44, Second Schedule, to delete the references to premises occupied by the "Honourable Society of the King's Inns, Dublin."
In page 44, Second Schedule, to delete the references to premises occupied by "Saint Patrick's Hospital."
In page 44, Second Schedule, to delete the references to premises occupied by the "Corn Exchange Buildings Company."
The purpose of these amendments is largely to ascertain from the Minister the principles upon which certain concessions in regard to rating have been conceded to certain bodies in the occupation of certain premises. I could understand to a certain extent why concessions are given to the Royal College of Surgeons, to the Royal College of Physicians and to the Honourable Society of King's Inns and, to a certain extent, possibly also to St. Patrick's Hospital, but I cannot understand why a concession in regard to rating has been extended to the Corn Exchange Buildings Company which is, I think, a purely commercial concern. Apart altogether from that, it appears to me that if the concession to the Royal College of Surgeons, to the Royal College of Physicians and to the Honourable Society of King's Inns is extended because of certain educational work done by these bodies or because of the professional control which they exercise, a similar case can be made out in connection with a considerable number of educational establishments in the city where the body of students is considerably in excess of any of those which come under the jurisdiction of any of the societies I have mentioned. I refer to premises occupied by other professional bodies such as the Institute of Civil Engineers of Ireland who also exercise a certain amount of professional control and jurisdiction over a professional body in Ireland. I am not putting forward a plea that these concessions should be extended to each of the cases I have mentioned. I am putting forward the case to the Minister and I ask him to justify it.— I think it will require, in the minds of the general public and the citizens of Dublin, a considerable amount of justification—as to why preferential treatment is meted out to most of the bodies I have mentioned.
I think the Deputy is under some sort of misapprehension in connection with the matter. We are not here and now proposing certain exemptions for certain bodies. Deputies will remember that previously I stated that in having a consolidated municipal rate we were wiping away all kinds of rates of different names which were raised in different ways and with different incidence. The bodies here mentioned are the bodies' which of old had exemptions from certain rates. Some of them were exempt from the improvement rate, some from the domestic water rate, some from the grand jury rate, and so on. Others when exempted from, say, the improvement rate, had to pay a particular tax based on the number of square yards between the front walls of their premises and the middle of the street. We introduced a consolidated municipal rate for the purpose of simplifying rating and accounting. In doing that we had to make some kind of arrangement to safeguard the exemptions of people who up to the present had exemptions. These premises, as the text of the Bill shows, will be rated to the full municipal rate, but they will be rated to the full municipal rate only on a particular percentage of their valuations, that percentage being worked out so that the percentage exemption that has operated in the past will continue. It may be that a case can be made out against some of the bodies having exemptions, but this is not the Bill upon which to make that case.
Is the Minister not continuing these exemptions, and would it not be within his power, to reconsider this whole matter and to decide not to continue these exemptions? We are asking the Minister to justify his decision to continue the exemptions.
I justify my decisions to continue the exemptions because we are dealing with this matter in a public Bill. There are people concerned with this part who have private rights. These parties had no opportunity of coming forward to argue their private rights in this matter and I do not think it reasonable, when we are simply making a change for the general public good, to take away from these people the exemption which they have enjoyed up to the present and which they have enjoyed because of definite statutory authority.
I must say that I think the Minister is approaching this matter in a very haphazard way. I would have thought when he was recasting the whole municipal government of Dublin, he would have certainly considered the position of privileged bodies under that government, and would have seen whether, under the circumstances that now prevail, he was justified in continuing exemptions granted under another regime.
I do not know whether the Corn Exchange Buildings Company, which is the subject of one of my amendments, at the present moment really discharges in the same complete and full way which it might have done 60 or 70 years ago, the functions for which the company was originally formed. My own personal opinion, from the few occasions I was within the precincts of the buildings of the company is that they simply exist as office premises, and that so far as the corn trade of the country is concerned, the company does not fulfil any function whatever. It is quite possible it might have been granted a concession, because it had opened as a medium of exchange between the corn-growers, the corn factors and the corn merchants. I do not know whether that continues at the present day. I do not know whether it performs that function on such a scale as to entitle it to the very substantial concession in rates which the Minister proposes to grant. The Minister is going to assess the premises upon three-fifths of their valuation.
Again, in regard to the other bodies, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians, although they do exercise important functions in regard to the medical profession, nevertheless, their membership is very limited, and I do not know whether it can be said that they are, on the whole, representative of the medical profession in the country, and whether, taking into consideration the changed circumstances, the Minister is justified in extending them the privilege which he proposes under this schedule. I would like to hear the Minister, particularly in regard to the Corn Exchange Buildings. I think he should justify the inclusion of these particular premises in the schedule, because the concession not only relates to the present premises, but to any other premises which they might hereafter occupy in substitution for the present premises. If by any chance they were to remove from the premises at Burgh Quay and enter into the occupation of one of the most palatial premises in Grafton Street, by that very fact they would benefit very considerably financially, and the citizens of Dublin would suffer financially very considerably.
In the consideration of this Bill I have never heard a case suggested for doing away with the exemptions, and for that reason I can only repeat that the occasion of the introduction of a consolidated municipal rate for the more economic, efficient and satisfactory administration of the finances of the city is not the time to interfere in any way with any of the exemptions that are there.
The real fact of the matter is that the Minister has not considered this problem. That is what his admission comes to. He is asking the House to continue these exemptions for all time not only in relation to the premises at present occupied by the various bodies, but any other premises which they may hereafter occupy in substitution for these. He is asking the House to continue the privilege in perpetuity. He ought to justify that or else withdraw the schedule. If the Minister could put up reasons, we may not be averse to granting the concession in connection with some of the bodies on the schedule, but the particular one I have cited I do not think is justifiable. If the Minister cannot see his way to meet us in the matter, I am afraid we shall have to divide the House.
I have nothing to add.
I think we might take it that amendments 83, 84, 85 and 85a are not moved and put the question on amendment 86.
Yes.
Amendment 86 put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 59.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- Wolfe, George.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Allen and Killilea; Níl, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage to be taken on Wednesday, 21st May.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m.