Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Feb 1931

Vol. 37 No. 2

Public Health (Special Expenses) Bill, 1930—Second Stage.

I beg to move the Second Reading of the Public Health (Special Expenses) Bill, 1930.

Special expenses are the expenses incurred by a rural sanitary authority in the carrying out of public health works such as sewerage and water supply schemes, and are levied off a special area of charge, determined by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. Such an area of charge, as the law stands at present, may be fixed as the townland, the dispensary district, the area of any rural district as constituted immediately before the 1st October, 1925, or such portions of any of the above-mentioned areas as may be determined by the Minister.

Under the Public Health (Ireland) Act of 1900 an area of charge may, upon the application of the rural sanitary authority, be fixed as the entire county health district. The small towns usually benefit most under these schemes, but their valuations are too low either to base the loan charges on these valuations or to raise on these valuations the necessary rate for paying off loan charges. There is a considerable variation in the proposal of local bodies for the chargeability of expenses of this nature. In some districts the tendency is to spread the expenditure for water supply and sewerage schemes over a wide area; in others, to narrow the area to that deemed to be most directly benefited. The Public Health, (Ireland) Act, 1878, lays down that the money borrowed shall not at any time exceed, with the balances of all the outstanding loans contracted by the sanitary authority, in the whole twice the net annual value of the premises assessable within the area of charge. To comply with this provision it is necessary in most cases to fix the area of charge as not less than the dispensary district in which the work is being carried out. The annual cost over such an area throws an onerous rate on land.

I gave particulars already as showing how that is effected in certain areas. It is proposed in the present Bill to amend the law so as to provide that a county council may, from the proceeds of a limited rate, contribute towards the annual cost of carrying out such works by the board of health where the area of charge is less than the county health district, and that where the area of charge fixed is an area less than a county health district, an apportionment of expenses may be made as between such area of charge and the area deemed to be directly benefited. As to the rate that may be struck, Section 2 empowers the county council to agree to make a contribution towards annual charges on foot of loan repayment in respect of water supply and sewerage works carried out by the board of health in the county. The amount of such contribution is not to exceed in respect of all such works the produce of the rates of 1½d. in the £ without the approval of the Minister; and with the sanction of the Minister to strike a rate not exceeding threepence. Thus when waterworks or sewerage schemes are being proposed the local authority may suggest, say, the dispensary area as the main area of charge but a small area inside that dispensary district is the area which is directly benefiting from the scheme. The major cost of the scheme will be put down on that area directly benefiting but a small charge may be put on the dispensary area or, as the case may be, on the rural district and the county council may by a small rate, struck over the county health district at large, give an annual sum to help towards the repayment of the loan charges.

Let us take the case of Oldcastle where the local authority consider that a water supply, of which the approximate cost will be £5,600 and a sewerage system, approximately costing £2,240, are necessary. As I say, the cost of a water supply there is expected to be £5,600. The loan at the present rates would be 5¾ per cent. over 25 years and, under present legislation, we would have to fix the area of charge in that case either as the rural district, the dispensary district, or the town. If the rural district is taken as the area of charge it would involve a rate of threepence halfpenny over that district in which there are about 44,000 acres. If the dispensary district were made the area of charge it would involve a rate of sixpence over the dispensary district which contains about 24,000 acres.

Deputies will see that that is an appreciable rate on agricultural land in respect of a water scheme which will, so far as some parts at any rate of that area are concerned, only remotely benefit them. If the area of charge is made the area of the town it is anticipated that the rate would be 7/6. Under the present proposals, if, say, the county council agree to an annual grant of £300, a very small fraction of the rate in County Meath, and if the rural district were the main area of charge, a rate of one penny for the rural district would suffice together with a rate of 1/3½ in the town. You would have the local body provided with a scheme for which it could put a reasonable rate on the area directly benefiting. It could put on the rural or dispensary district a rate which will not bear as heavily as the rates which some of these districts have had to pay. The local authority will be empowered to give a small subvention from the rate leviable over the country towards helping such schemes. The proposal, I understand, is welcomed by a number of local bodies who have been discussing these schemes in recent months.

I move the following amendment, which is in the name of Deputy O'Kelly:—

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:—

"the Dáil declines to give a Second Reading to a Public Health (Special Expenses) Bill which does not embody the principle that the State as a whole shall bear such portion of the cost of any sanitary schemes as is not met by the charge on the area immediately benefited."

I do not think that it is necessary to enter into any lengthy explanation of this amendment, as I think that its terms explain its purpose fairly clearly. We all know that very necessary public health works have been from time to time postponed and delayed and, in some cases, not gone on with at all, simply because agreement could not be got by those who were not immediately concerned as to the advisability of such schemes. Up to the present we have had the county councils and those in the immediate vicinity of the areas benefiting protesting against the extra charges inasmuch as they felt that they were not immediately concerned. There was no principle that I could see on which a district immediately surrounding the town was portioned off and made responsible for a part of the cost. It seems to me that the area was portioned off, not because those in the particular contributing area, as it has been called, were particularly concerned, but because an area sufficiently large had to be taken so as to enable the money to be borrowed and so that the assessable value of the premises and hereditaments, as the Minister has said, in that particular area might be sufficient according to the law to cover the requirements for raising a loan.

Why should that be the determining factor? Is it not quite clear that the matter of public health is one that should concern the community as a whole? Our view is this, if there is to be an apportionment of the charge and if the particular area benefiting cannot bear the entire cost, the apportionment ought to be as between the area immediately benefiting and the community or State as a whole. That is why we put in the amendment. We believe that it is fair and that it is more in accordance with the right idea of public health responsibility to have the charge borne by the community as a whole where it cannot be borne by the area immediately benefiting. The Minister is empowered to determine what shall be the area and what shall be the charge on the area immediately benefited. We believe that any Bill to meet this particular matter should be so framed as to put on the area immediately benefiting the heaviest portion of the cost provided that it is not unreasonable, that is, as heavy a charge as it can reasonably carry and that after that whatever is necessary to enable these public works to be carried out should be borne by the State as a whole. At present the farming community are burdened beyond their capacity, and it is only natural to expect, when any proposal is put forward for the initiation of public health works in any particular area, that the farming community not immediately benefiting by such works will object to them and that, therefore, they will be put back. Apart from the point of view of justice there is the point of view that these works would not be undertaken unless some provision such as we suggest is made. While we think that there is an improvement in the existing law in the Bill as proposed by the Minister we do not think it goes far enough. We believe that after the Bill has passed the condition of affairs which prevented the undertaking of these necessary public health works will continue. Accordingly, I propose that a Second Reading be not given to the Bill until we have embodied in it the principle that the State should be the contributing area.

We are supporting the amendment put forward by Deputy de Valera for the reasons he has explained. At the present moment it is absolutely impossible to get any county council to move in the direction which this Bill intends it shall move because the farming community, as Deputy de Valera stated, believe themselves to be overburdened with taxation. There are crying demands from all parts of the different counties, especially the rural parts, for better sanitary conveniences. These facilities have been long overdue because of the fact that the area of charge has been so limited and I am very much afraid that the extensions permitted in the Bill put forward by the Minister are not going to do very much in that direction. I believe it is necessary that the Minister should agree to the amendment if he wants the work to be done. Certainly things have gone so far in the country, so far as the ratepayers and high costs in these matters are concerned, that it is absolutely necessary that the State should come to the help of local authorities to carry out public sanitary works. These matters have been neglected for the last ten or twelve years owing to the cost being so high. I do not believe that this Bill will go any length in solving the problem with which local authorities are confronted so far as sanitary work is concerned. I therefore support the amendment.

Apparently it has not occurred to the Minister that the provision made for the area of charge is very unfair to a considerable number of ratepayers in any particular county.

This Bill I am afraid will not go far enough towards removing that unfairness. This matter of the provision of proper water supplies and sewerage schemes is one of national importance. Epidemics break out periodically in many places because of the want of these facilities. These epidemics have an unfortunate habit of not confining themselves to a particular area. In these days of rapid transport, people travel much more than they did and infection is very easily conveyed. It is just as much a matter of importance to the man living one hundred miles away from the area of the outbreak, as it is to the man living twenty miles away that the cause be removed.

It is not unfair to ask that every individual in the State should bear some portion of the cost of providing these facilities. A farmer with a fairly large holding, living fifty miles from the benefiting area, is asked to contribute to the cost of the provision of these facilities whereas his neighbour living across the road but under a different rating authority contributes nothing at all although one man derives as much benefit as another from the scheme. We are not asking too much when we ask that portion of the charge be contributed by the State and that every individual in the country should have it brought home to him that he is just as likely to suffer ill-effects from the lack of these facilities as the man living a few miles away from the area which needs these facilities. As Deputy Corish pointed out, one of the greatest obstacles to the carrying out of a scheme in the past has been the fact that the farmer living outside a town and the farmer living at the other end of the county offered such very strong and determined opposition. Each man looked at it from his own selfish point of view. "Why should I be asked to pay?" asks the farmer who is 20 miles away. He naturally brings pressure to bear on his representative on the county council with the result that some very necessary scheme has to be abandoned. I am afraid the present Bill will not remove any of these difficulties. I shall, therefore, support the amendment.

One fact which Deputies overlook is that where water schemes have been carried out in unurbanised towns a certain revenue is derived from the inhabitants who take in a supply. That money is put to the credit of the local authorities and lessens the charges as they come along year by year. If we adopt the scheme put forward by Deputy de Valera, the amount derived in revenue in that way will have to go to the Government. Why should that be? If there is a certain amount of revenue derived from water schemes that should be put to the credit of the rates paid by those who have contributed towards those schemes. The one thing I am interested in is the question whether the extra rate to be paid over the larger area will have to be paid in one year or for the number of years mentioned in the loan. If it was only struck for one year I would be quite agreeable, but I do not think it would be fair to have it struck for 25 years. It should be only struck for the larger area for one year and let the benefiting area pay the rest. A certain revenue is paid into the local authorities all over the country by water consumers. That revenue goes to lessen the cost of that particular scheme.

I am opposed to the Bill and in favour of the amendment.

Most of the reasons for that attitude have been touched upon by the various Deputies who spoke. It appears to me that instead of assisting in bringing about better public health conditions, owing to the opposition that will be aroused amongst the farming community because of the additional burdens that will be imposed on them by the Bill, the matter of dealing with this public health question will be considerably set back. The Bill, as far as I can understand it, has not any application to urban areas. It appears to be intended for areas for which the board of health are the sanitary authorities. That means that where a sewerage scheme or a waterworks scheme has been carried out in any unurbanised area, that area is entitled to the assistance of a rate of 3d. in the £ over the entire county.

That is not so. There may be forty semi-urbanised areas in any one county. One, three, or ten of the forty may require water schemes. In considering any one scheme the county council may decide that it will give for a period of years a certain amount annually towards paying off the loan charges. But it will have to bear in mind that it may have in the course of time to deal with all of those forty-two areas, let us say for a period of ten years. It has to deal with ten or fifteen of those forty-two areas. The rate struck by the county council for the county board of health area for these ten or fifteen schemes cannot exceed a rate of 1½d. for the whole lot without the sanction of the Minister or with the sanction of the Minister cannot exceed 3d., and normally the assistance of any one scheme might be one-ninth or one-eighth of a penny on the rate.

I do not think we are much clearer after that elaborate explanation. It did not tell us anything we did not know already. If there is only one unurbanised area in a county, the county council can, with the sanction of the Minister, strike a rate of 3d. in the £. The area that has the misfortune to have an urban council apparently cannot have this contribution at all. If that is so, it appears to me to be an unfair discrimination in favour of, say, the urban area that has Town Commissioners against the urban area that has an urban council.

Some of those areas that are not urbanised are considerably larger in population than the areas that are urbanised. I do not think it is fair to an urban area that may have to put a heavy burden on the local rates confined to the urban district in order to get modern sanitary equipment. I do not think it is fair that 3d. in the £ from the county at large should be given to the Town Commissioners, and not to an urban council. Apart altogether from that it is quite apparent that the Minister does not recognise the magnitude of the problem before him. He says we can have a threepenny rate no matter how many villages or unurbanised areas there may be. In a county the maximum contribution from the county at large will be threepence in the £. I do not think the Minister realises the primitive sanitary conditions that exist in small towns, unurbanised areas and villages throughout the country. In the northern end of the county in which I live we have the villages Scotstown, Tydavnet, Glasslough, Emyvale, Smithboro', Scotshouse, Newbliss, Rockcorry, Ballinode and Mullan. I think that is about ten. There is not a waterworks scheme or a sewerage scheme in any one of these villages. If the Minister's solution of that condition of things is a three-penny rate spread over the entire county I can assure him that that is never going to solve it. Apart altogether from that, I am not quite clear whether, when the county council strike this county at large charge, they will include in that the urban areas.

No, the urban areas will not be included.

That disposes of some doubt. I am sure many of the Deputies here have not the advantage of knowing County Monaghan as intimately as I know it, but it illustrates the arguments against this Bill. Take, for example, the town of Ballybay. Surely the Minister would not seriously argue that the farmers of Killany and Inniskeen or the farmers of Truagh and Tydavnet would benefit to a greater extent than, say, the farmers of the greater portion of Co. Cavan by the improved sanitary conditions of Ballybay town if we were to put in a new waterworks and sewerage scheme there. It ought to be perfectly obvious to anyone who has given thought to this that an arbitrary line of demarcation whereby people get the maximum benefit from schemes like this cannot be drawn. The people of the neighbouring county will certainly derive more benefit from the sanitary conditions than the people in the same county twenty or twenty-five miles away. That in itself is a strong argument in favour of having a State charge once it has been estimated following an inquiry as to what would be a reasonable amount on the local rates.

Infectious or contagious diseases have a habit of spreading in the most mysterious way. If a case can be made for making any public service in the State a State charge, I say that case is automatically made in favour of making this a State charge. If as a result of any insanitary conditions in any one of the towns in the Twenty-six Counties an epidemic of contagious diseases arises, the people of the whole Twenty-six Counties are exposed to the possibility of that disease being spread. If we have an all-Ireland football match, the next place we may find it is in Kerry. It is spread through fairs, markets, sports meetings, and other ways in which people are brought into close association. Consequently, it seems to me to be absurd to suggest that a county is the only area benefiting from an improvement in the public health services. This is a matter on which I am very keen, and I would be very glad if the Minister would take the question into serious consideration and give it as much thought as he can afford. It is quite apparent that he has not brought reasoned judgment to bear on this matter. Very expensive machinery has been set up in addition to the existing machinery for the treatment of diseases. I do not think it would be in order to go into that in very much detail, except to refer to it in passing, but surely we should have reached a time when it would be obvious to anyone who has any interest in public health matters that we must devote more attention to the prevention of disease, and the two most important things in that direction would be proper sanitation and proper water supply. The other things, such as housing, etc., I cannot mention here.

This thing is not going to bring us any further. It is not going to make public health services more popular than they were before. If we mean to advance in improving public health services, then we must alter our methods of dealing with them, and the only way that can be done is to take it as a State responsibility. In that way you will get relieved of the prejudices. There are other matters bearing on this that make it essential that the area should be certainly a wider area than the county. For example, take the geographical conditions of any area that should get a water supply or a sewerage scheme. If the reservoir is ten miles from the town that water supply costs more than if the reservoir were only five miles away, and the cost of upkeep will also be relatively greater. In the same way if you have to have your sewerage pipes a mile or two out of the town in order to reach your purification beds, it is going to cost twice or three times more than a town in a different geographical position.

I do not know whether the Minister had these considerations before his mind, but I think when his attention is drawn to them he ought to see that this Bill is not going to bring us forward. There is a serious risk that it may set us back. There is a possibility that in the future—I do not know how remote—a de-rating scheme will be approved of in this House. If such a thing were to come to pass, what rate would we have to put on the farm buildings (if agricultural land were derated) in order to give effect to these sewerage schemes, or how would it be received in the farming community if it were said we were going to have sewerage or waterworks schemes in every village, but it would involve 10/- in the rates on the buildings on agricultural holdings? If we were in that position I think we would ensure that our sewerage scheme would not go any further, but even if that condition would not arise I seriously suggest to the Minister that this is not a contribution towards the solution of one of the biggest questions that this country has yet to face.

I listened with interest to the speech that has been delivered by Deputy Ward and, to be candid, until his closing remarks I thought he was speaking in favour of the Bill. He pointed out the deplorable state of sanitation in the rural areas, and in that respect I absolutely agree with him. He painted a true picture of the situation and did not exaggerate. It is a situation which there is no necessity to exaggerate. In his criticism of the Bill he told us that a waterworks with a reservoir convenient to a town is considerably cheaper than when it is some distance away. In that entirely, I agree. But, to get down to the Bill, the way to examine it is to see whether it will make the position better in the future than it is. The position at the moment, as Deputy Ward pointed out, is that in most rural areas, other than urbanised towns, there are no proper waterworks and no proper sewage disposal systems. The reason for that is very well known to every Deputy.

The law governing the water rate and the area of charge lays it down that there must be a flat rate for the entire district, either the dispensary district or the rural district council area. In effect that means that farmers living seven miles away from a town, who receive little or no benefit from the water supply or the sewerage system, must pay an equal rate with shopkeepers in the town who get the full value, or, if you take it over the district council area, it means that farmers living sixteen or twenty miles from a town must pay an equal rate to that paid by shopkeepers and others who get the benefit. The reason why the sanitary situation is as it was described by Deputy Ward is because people ten or twenty miles distant will not agree to pay the same rate as men in the town who receive the benefit. It is an unjust system, an unbalanced system, and one that is not equitable. We have not water supplies in our towns, and we have not sewerage systems, because of the present state of the law.

This Bill in the last section proposes to give power to the boards of health to alter the rigid scheme of levying rates. It gives power over the question as to whether a higher rate will have to be paid for a waterworks or a sewerage scheme by those who get the benefit than those living ten miles away. It merely gives that discretionary power. The Bill is an attempt to give added powers to local representatives throughout the country, and it is just in keeping with the general principles of the ultra-democratic Party on the left, that its members should oppose any attempt to give extra power to local boards or to place a little more confidence in local representatives.

Another portion of the Bill gives power to the county council to strike a rate without sanction up to 1½d. in the £ for the purpose of providing a water supply or a sewerage system It does not compel them to do it; it leaves it to the members of the county council to do it or not to do it. It puts a factor for the relief of unemployment in the hands of the county council that is not there at present. It puts the county council in the position that, where there might be acute unemployment in one area, they could start a scheme that would absorb the unemployed, improve the public health of the county and also the sanitary conditions of a particular area. Is it right to oppose the county council getting such powers? They may levy a rate or they may not. This Bill gives them power to do so if, in their wisdom, they decide to do so. Deputy Ward stands up and opposes such power being given to county councils. The rate is 1½d. in the £. That may create a big pool in a county out of which a grant might be made to two, three or four towns. Seeing that the position in our towns is such as was described by Deputy Ward, I think every honest attempt should be made by all parties to make it possible for these conditions to be removed. At the present moment are not our boards, consisting as they do chiefly of farmers, right in opposing any schemes for which the same rate is levied on a man who gets no benefit as on the man who gets all the benefit? This Bill makes it possible to ease the situation and vary the rate. It makes it possible for a central pool to assist any work that is done. I think this is a Bill that should go through without opposition and without controversy. It is a Bill that will be a big step forward towards removing the deplorable conditions that exist outside the urban centres.

With regard to the State carrying the liability, there is nothing in the Bill either to compel or to prevent that. From time to time the State has come to the assistance of such public bodies, and at the moment, it is giving assistance. But it would be scarcely judicious to lay down in the Bill what the State shall do for the future. It would scarcely be reasonable for one Government to pledge the action of a future Government. This Government may make a grant, or may not make a grant. Nothing in the Bill prevents their making a grant.

This Bill is part of the considered policy of the Minister. From my experience of local bodies it is the considered policy, and the endeavour of the Minister, to use every artifice in his power to make the farming community pay for what they have no right to pay, and for which, in my opinion, he has no right to call upon them to pay. I have a fairly wide experience of the manner in which money for water and sewerage schemes has been raised by local bodies. I shall give the Minister a concrete instance which is lying in his Department, if his officials have had time to study it. It is in consection with a water supply for Dougas, in the suburbs of Cork, which was to cost £1,950. When this scheme came before the South Cork Board it was pointed out that some sixty new houses were to be built there at a cost of £1,200 each. These houses would be too large to be eligible for a grant, and would be occupied by men like Deputy O'Higgins, or some other official of the Minister who could afford to pay a very high rent. The idea was to get the unfortunate farmer living on a mountain, and having perhaps to go one and a half miles with a barrel and a donkey for water for himself, to pay for water for cooking, baths, etc., for these houses. The attempt made to put the charge on the Cork rural district was only beaten by the casting vote of the chairman. Subject to the Minister's sanction, it is now being placed on the Douglas Dispensary area. The Minister, now realising that the farming community are no longer going to stand for water supplies of this description, says we can put sixpence in the pound on Douglas and twopence on the farmer on the mountain, so that the opposition will be lessened and the farmer will pay twopence in the pound for the gentlemen going into houses costing £1,200.

Let us examine the principle underlying the proposal. The Minister says that it would be sixpence on one area and a penny or three-halfpence on the wider area. Take a person living in one of these suburbs who has a slaughter-house and exports fresh pork and lamb across the water. He will have a turnover, say, of £5,000 of which about £500 would be profit and he will pay rates for the slaughterhouse on a valuation of about £10. He will be paying sixpence in the pound on that valuation or 5 shillings. The Minister wants us to put three-halfpence in the pound on the farmer living 20 miles away with a turnover of £1,000 and no profit, who pays rates on a valuation of £100, twelve-and-eight pence on the farmer. That is the idea underlying the Minister's scheme. Does he consider it fair? I realise, as everybody who has anything to do with local bodies does, the absolute necessity of both water and sewerage schemes for our villages and towns, but I realise also that the practice carried out up to the present of taxing one man's business and one man's business only to pay for all local services will have to cease. The people who are running the only business which is being taxed at present for local services, namely, the farmers, have got wise and will not pay any more and the sooner the Minister realises that the better. These charges will have to be made a national charge and borne by the nation as a whole. Some Deputies who will vote to-day for this measure, have, as members of county boards of health, refused to sanction water supplies because the Minister was not prepared to give a 50-50 grant towards them. These men will to-day probably, under the Cumann na nGaedheal Whip, vote in the Cumann na nGaedheal Lobby while they voted in that way at the local bodies where they are responsible to the ratepayers. It is time for the Minister to realise that this would mean putting the last straw on the camel's back.

I realise the Minister's difficulty. He finds that the ratepayers' representatives on the local bodies have got wise to this and are compelling the local areas to bear their own burdens. If these gentlemen with £950 or £1,000 a year living in houses that cost £1,200 want hot and cold water in their houses the farmers are no longer going to pay for water and sewerage schemes for them. It is time that the master builders who reap 50 or 60 per cent. profit on the houses they built should bear this burden or put it on to the price of the houses. It is no longer going to be borne by the farmer who has nothing to gain from it. It is sufficient for the farmers to pay the salaries of these gentlemen without having to supply them with hot and cold water as well. The Minister should make this a national charge, so that portion of it will be borne by the gentlemen concerned.

I am in agreement with the amendment and I am very glad that the Second Reading was postponed so as to give time for the proper consideration of the Bill and to enable the amendment to be brought forward. I think it was a very wise step. I think the position of affairs as put forward to-day has absolutely justified the postponing of this Bill from November and has put the Minister in a very queer light in attempting to rush the Bill through without consideration in the hope that the House would be duped and led astray and agree to it as an emergency measure at the tail end of the Session.

There is general agreement in the House as to the necessity for improving our sewerage. There is also general agreement that the public health position, so far as the supply of fresh water is concerned, is not what we would like it to be. What we have to consider is the best way and the most likely way of getting an improvement as soon as possible. It seems to me that while the Minister's proposals are undoubtedly an improvement on the position, there are still very great delays and difficulties to be encountered before we can induce our public bodies as a whole to take that broad and long-sighted view of public health that we would like them to take. That is why I have come to the conclusion that of the two methods suggested here the one contained in the amendment is the more likely to produce the results which we are all anxious to bring about.

Deputy O'Higgins in supporting the proposals in the Bill seemed to lay a good deal of stress on the fact that these proposals were not mandatory on the county councils or boards of health. That is a doubtful kind of advantage so far as I see because I have no great hope of the ordinary boards of health, who do not show any great interest in the position under the present system, taxing themselves for the public health services of their districts or areas or that they will be willing of themselves to strike a 1½d. or 3d. rate in order to speed up the institution of water-works schemes or a sewerage scheme in their area. I have the feeling, even if this Bill is passed, that the number of boards of health who will take it on themselves to strike this rate inside any reasonable time will be very small indeed.

Personally, if I were interested in a scheme I would not agree to go to the county council, composed as it might be of the men of the type of Deputy Corry, whose objections we have just heard stated here, and of many others who would put up that very type of objection that Deputy Corry has put up. The facts are that we will find a town or a village of 1,000 or 1,500 inhabitants or less, and everybody likely to get immediate benefit will be anxious to get a scheme of this kind through and to bear a reasonable share of the cost. It would be impossible for them to bear it all. But if you go outside that area somebody must come to their assistance, and which body is the most likely to come to their assistance and see that the scheme is carried out? Is it the county council or the board of health on the one hand, or the Ministry of Local Government and Public Health on the other hand? That is the way I look at it. I take it that we can depend on whatever Minister for Public Health we have to take a broader and a longer view and to be more interested in the public health of the country than, on the whole, a county council is likely to be. That is why I would pin my faith in this matter to a central authority coming forward, and of being more desirous to come forward, to give the additional grant necessary over and above what the local body is willing to pay. I would say, and I think there is nobody in the House but will agree with me, that it is more likely in any case that if the Minister for Local Government and Public Health has this power he will be more ready to provide the additional money required than the county councils would be which have to raise the money by striking a 1½d. or 3d. rate in the £. Now this is a question of taxation or of local rates.

It is a question of money.

Mr. O'Connell

Yes, and so far as I am concerned it does not seem to me to make a great difference as to which pocket it comes out of, but we know there is that belief—it may be a foolish belief—that it is more equitable to raise general taxation than by simply making it a question of rates. In any case, there is no great argument in favour of county boundaries. They were drawn on very arbitrary lines, and they are there for hundreds and hundreds of years, and we do not know at this stage of our development what was the principle on which they were drawn. At any rate, it is not true that you can say a rate is equitable because it coincides with the county boundary. I believe that money raised by taxation is for the benefit not alone of a particular area, but for the benefit of the whole community. The public health, as pointed out by previous speakers, cannot be said to be entirely a matter of purely local interest. It is a matter of national interest, and as we are organised as a national entity, the whole national entity should be responsible.

The time is coming when we must look at the question of public health in the same way as we look at questions of public education. Local districts are not expected to pay for the education of the children of their own particular area. I think, from the point of view of expediency and of getting the thing done that we are all anxious to get done, it is more likely to be done if whatever portion is required over and above the amount the local benefiting area can afford to pay is paid out of a central fund than by local taxation. It is more likely to be done in that way than if left to the county councils. The county councils in the past have not shown that they are particularly anxious to get this work done, and I have no hope that they are going to be much better in the future. I think the time has come when we must face up to the problems of the improvement of public health services in this country. I think if it came to be publicly recognised to the extent that it might be recognised that we are a food-producing country exporting food produce to other countries, it would be absolutely necessary for us to have more regard for our public health services than we have.

There is agreement in this House as to the need for better sanitary accommodation in the towns and villages throughout the country, particularly in the inland counties. I have from time to time advocated that this scheme should be treated on a national basis, such, for instance, as the trunk-road schemes were treated in the Saorstát. This amendment aims at placing an equitable share of the cost on the taxpayers of the country as distinguished from the ratepayers. We are told that the farmers of the country pay eighty per cent. of the central taxation; it is only fair to ask the other 20 per cent. to bear their proportion of the cost for the improvement of the sanitation of the country towns. The other 20 per cent. are in many cases the section that benefits most from such schemes where they have been undertaken. Deputy O'Higgins, speaking on this Bill, said that the position in future would be better than the position at the moment if this Bill becomes law. I am not going to dispute that fact, but while we have the opportunity, and the opportunity presents itself to us now, we should make this Bill as good as it is possible to make it. I believe that we will make this Bill far better by embodying some principle such as that contained in the amendment. Deputy O'Connell has pointed out that the county councils have optional powers under this Bill, and so long as they have optional powers, I submit to the Minister that the position in regard to public health will be exactly the same as to-day.

The various county boards of health throughout the country shelved the responsibility more or less. They asked the county council for various grants to carry out these schemes. But in fact in every case the county councils have refused to pass the loans. Now the county councils who have refused to ask for loans to carry out these schemes are not very likely to fall over one another in the carrying out of necessary improvements all over the country. Deputy O'Higgins said that a farmer living 22 miles away in a rural district is, at the present moment, paying the same as a man living in the town for the water supply of that town. I think that does not fairly represent the position. A farmer living 22 miles away may have to pay one penny in the £ and the man in the town may have to pay one penny in the £, but the man in the town may also have to pay a water rate which in many cases amounts to 2/- or 2/6.

A point that has not been mentioned by any speaker is the effect of this matter on the tourist traffic. I dare say everybody is anxious to develop the tourist traffic in this country as much as possible. We are told that what militates against an increase in the volume of tourist traffic particularly in the South and West is that there are towns in the South and West that have not proper sanitary accommodation. The encouragement of the tourist traffic and the bringing of visitors in great numbers into the country should be a concern of the Government. If the tourist traffic, particularly in the South and West in this country, can be increased through the means of improved sanitation in our towns, it is obviously the duty of the Government to make a substantial contribution towards the solution of these problems. To my mind there is no question whatever that if this Bill embodied some such principle as our amendment more schemes in the way of sanitation and waterworks will be carried through. There is scarcely a Deputy in the House who has not been receiving resolutions from boards of health and county councils in connection with some sewerage scheme or other and requesting him to lead deputations to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. Personally I have been asked dozens of times to accompany such deputations to ask for 50 per cent. of the cost of the proposed scheme. This amendment proposes, I will not say to give 50 per cent. of the proposed scheme, but it proposes that some portion of the cost should be borne by the State.

I wonder would the Deputy give a shot at the percentage which he does propose. If the Deputy would not say 50 per cent. what portion or percentage would he suggest?

Time and again, when going on deputations to the Minister we have asked for 50 per cent.

Does the Deputy suggest that the State should provide 50 per cent.?

I would rather leave that to the Minister.

There is a lot left to the Minister.

How does the Minister determine 3½d. in the £?

A certain amount raised by the 1d. in the £.

Will not the same principle be there to determine the cost of any particular area? What portion would be borne by the area benefited?

I would like the Deputy to explain the working of his principle?

The Minister told us that he was quite willing to advance 25 per cent. of the cost of the schemes at present. He also told us that two or three years ago. The Minister would very easily arrive at a suitable figure, considering that he has already been able to arrive at that figure of 25 per cent. Then he has in his Department all the statistics necessary for making calculations. He has got the valuations of the towns and the rural districts as well as the dispensary districts. He has all this data at his disposal, data that I have not at the moment. If the Minister supplied me with all the figures that he has I would be able to work it out in half an hour.

There is not a figure that the Deputy wants for this purpose that he will not find in the Census volumes for 1926.

It certainly would be possible for a schoolboy to arrive at the percentage he asks. An ordinary schoolboy would do it in ten minutes if he had the Minister's figures before him. It would be a very elementary sum for anybody. I certainly say that a national school boy in the sixth standard would do it.

Apparently what we lack here is the energy of the boy of the sixth class to work out our percentages.

The Minister has the officials of the Department to work it out. In conclusion, I repeat that I think the acceptance of this amendment will lead towards the speeding up of improvements in the sanitary conditions of the inland towns. We are all just as anxious as the Minister to see the day come when these conditions will be altered. Therefore, I support the amendment.

Perhaps longer than anyone else in this House I have been speaking about the absence of proper sanitary conditions in rural areas throughout the country and about the need for the improvement of the public health in this country. Up to the present there has been no attempt made to improve the sanitary conditions in a manner commensurate with the needs of the people. Now there is an opportunity given to us to improve these conditions. When there is a proposal put forward by means of which improvements will be effected we should examine the conditions very carefully before we throw any obstacles or objections in the way of those trying to make those improvements possible. I came here to-day without having made up my mind. I listened very carefully and with interest to the speeches made. As far as I am concerned my own position is this, that I am very anxious to improve the public health conditions throughout the country. I do not care how these are improved. That is the position I occupy. On the other hand, I am faced with two proposals—one that the State bear a proportion—a proportion which has not been named. Admittedly the proportion is extremely difficult to determine. On the other hand, the local people who are going to benefit by these works——

My suggestion is that it would be no more than the county council is being asked to pay at present.

That exactly is the point I was going to make. In any conditions with which I am familiar and in any services with the running of which I am familiar, my experience is that the cost of services that are run largely by the State is immeasurably greater than the cost of those services for which the local people are responsible.

I took a very strong attitude with regard to another matter in connection with the hospitals that are run by the State. I showed on that occasion that the cost of these hospitals was practically double the cost of an hospital run by local voluntary contributions. I am not going to dwell on that. What I do feel is that the proposals put forward by the Minister are very much more likely to give an efficient service at a much less rate than if the State agreed to pay even half the amount. I think if the State agrees to pay half the amount that there will be a tremendous cost to the country, because, as Deputy O'Connell has pointed out, one does not care very much what pocket the money comes out of when eventually it will come out of the pockets of the people.

The Minister, I think, has put forward a very fair scheme under which those who will benefit most will pay most and those who will benefit little will pay little. Where the whole country is going to get benefit from the scheme they may subscribe. I think the only point on which I would agree is that we should insist that the county council should give a certain yearly contribution. As has been pointed out, if there are only one or two areas to benefit it may only mean a ninth or an eighth of a penny in the £. Where there are fifteen or twenty areas to benefit then 3d. in the £ may be necessary. If an entire county benefits or if twenty areas benefit it is not a very large amount.

Having come with an open mind and listened to the arguments put forward, I have come to the conclusion that the Minister's scheme, from my point of view, will be a much less costly affair than if the amendment were carried and the State were going to pay half the rate. For that reason, I am going to support the second reading of the Bill.

On many occasions here I advocated some form of scheme to improve the sanitary conditions of a number of towns. Amongst the towns I mentioned in the constituency of Meath is the one referred to by the Minister for Local Government, that is the town of Oldcastle. A peculiar position, to my mind, arises not alone with the administration of this scheme but with the administration of most schemes, because farmers believe that the Minister for Local Government is very adept at putting forward schemes, sometimes compulsory, which the local representatives have to administer, and, worse still, for which they have to raise the money.

Another form suggested was something on the lines of the Arterial Drainage Act. That, of course, has not been a success, and one of the reasons why it has not been a success and cannot be is because local authorities have already too much to do and more than they can attend to. As most of you know, Oldcastle is on the very edge of Meath. In fact the town of Oldcastle is almost entirely supported from the County of Cavan, which is a much more businesslike county than the County of Meath. The fact of the matter is that they have made Oldcastle a really good town. The poor law valuation of Oldcastle is extremely low and the poor law valuation of the country around Oldcastle is extremely high, with the result that I believe a penny in the £ in Oldcastle—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—would come to about £7.

Another thing about Oldcastle is that it is the centre of a great fishing industry. Loughsheelan, a famous lake for fishing, is situated close to Oldcastle. The Blackwater is not far distant and the lake at Virginia in Co. Cavan is not far distant, with the result that Oldcastle is a great centre for fishing. That brings rather a good revenue to the town. Not alone that but Oldcastle is the centre of distribution for a great quantity of foreign goods that come through the City of Dublin. Any day you will see twenty or thirty motor cars distributing foreign goods in that town and to other towns around it. The result of the Minister's proposal evidently would be that if a rate was levied on the county the County Meath would be paying for a drainage scheme and water scheme in the town of Oldcastle and any benefits that might go to the farmers would go to the farmers of County Cavan. Of course they might be able to restrict it and compel the dispensary district to do it, but the question that has always to be considered is when these schemes are proposed and the question of levying the charges is raised, can the people of that district or can the ratepayers of, say, Co. Meath afford any more? I attended a meeting of the Farmers' Union the other day and I left with the impression that they could not possibly pay anything. I can water that down a little bit. I expect they can pay something but it is a very doubtful point that they would be able to bear the burden of this scheme with content because if they are not really able to bear it there is hardly a doubt about it that they will put up a stiff resistance. I do not think I can even agree with Deputy O'Higgins that there are some hopes of this being a success or that there will be some improvement in a year or two. I do not think we ought to set out that way at all. There is not much use in starting on the expectation that we ought to have some little improvement. In a thing like that I think very definite steps ought to be taken that some permanent improvement will occur. After all this question of public health is a sort of battle. It is certainly preventative. I think that ought to be the policy of the Minister for Local Government, instead of attempting to cure disease after it has arisen. I think his policy ought to be to prevent it at the source. As far as the apportioning of the money is concerned I do not see that there can be any extraordinary difficulty about it because people will not be compelled to accept all the schemes. They will be only compelled to accept schemes that are obviously a necessity and that would be a national benefit. I do not believe for one moment that the expenses would be any more than the county council would be able to bear. I am quite sure that in the way the amendment proposes it would be cheaper, and it certainly would be done more quickly. I cannot agree with Deputy O'Higgins that there are even hopes of a success because especially in the times in which we are living I do not think the farmers will tolerate any more burdens being imposed on them. They are in expectation that they are on the eve of de-rating.

The amendment proposed is in itself a form of de-rating. I do not expect, of course, that the House will accept it. The House will accept the Bill which the Minister is supporting.

The Deputy hopes so.

Mr. O'Reilly

No, because it will be simply only a gesture. We will not get any results, and I believe that it is results that we want and must have.

Mr. Hogan (Clare):

Not being an income taxpayer, I do not object to taking money out of a certain pocket so long as it is not taken out of the local pocket. Some of this money will come from income tax rather than from local rates. I would say a word on behalf of the much-abused county councils. I do not believe that county councils are such terrible bodies as we are told they are, or that they are likely to turn down schemes which people are able to bear. The county councils are in constant contact with the people of the various areas, and they know what these people are able to bear. I do not think that we should throw so much dirty water upon the county councils as we are inclined to do. If they will not put schemes into operation, and will not strike a threepenny or three-half-penny rate, it is because they know that in the first instance a threepenny rate could not be borne by a great many ratepayers, and they would also understand clearly that a three-halfpenny rate would do very little in the way of supplying good sanitation and water schemes for unurbanised districts. In the average county a rate of 1½d. would realise about £2,500. That would pay interest probably on £40,000 or £50,000, but what would such sum do in a county? There might be twenty or thirty towns requiring a water supply or sewerage scheme. Is it going to be done in a proper fashion with such a sum? Is it going to be made fool-proof? Is it going to create a situation in which you will not have centres of contamination where an outbreak of diphtheria or fever might originate? Is it going to provide sufficient schemes for each county?

It is not meant to. It is only a contribution to the loan charges.

Mr. Hogan

It would be better if the Minister, instead of interrupting, made himself clear at the outset of his remarks. We have had certain interruptions from him, but they have not been very illuminating. I am not saying that in disparagement of the Minister.

I am sure that I made it clear that a county council for a board of health area was to strike a rate only for a sum to help towards the loan charges——

Mr. Hogan

I quite agree, but you are mulcting the same people several times. The Minister realises that thoroughly. You mulct the people in the smaller areas and again you mulct the people in the larger areas.

Mr. Hogan

The Minister realises that a grant of 5 per cent. on £50,000 would not be sufficient to provide sewerage and water schemes in counties where you have twenty or thirty towns to attend to. What towns are you going to leave out? You might leave out a centre where contamination and epidemics might start. After all, you cannot reduce national health to local considerations. If there is any real basis for the argument for charges for sanitation and sewerage schemes it surely is in order to preserve national health. You may localise the charge but you cannot localise the effect of an outbreak of fever or diphtheria. That is the principal objection which I have to the Bill. The two objections which I see to the Bill are these: First of all, the amount of money which you are going to raise in order to help the smaller districts will not be sufficient to enable all the small towns and villages to get adequate sewerage and water schemes. The places which you will leave untouched and unattended are perhaps the places where contamination will start. Then you are simply leaving areas without attending to the matter properly. The proper way is to make it a national charge and to see that all districts are dealt with in a proper and complete fashion. Moreover, you are localising the national position. Improvement in sanitation and water supplies is a national concern, but you are making it a local charge. These are the main reasons why I oppose the Bill and support the amendment.

Deputy Dr. O'Higgins referred to the attitude of members on this side of the House in refusing to give to local authorities further powers. So far as our experience goes the only extra powers that we ever saw the Minister prepared to give to local bodies were further powers to increase the rates on those who are unable to bear any further burden. The Minister's attitude is like this: He asks the farmers to take a certain amount of responsibility for the provision of sewerage or water schemes and, at the same time, he sends an order to the county councils that they are not to strike a rate or spend any money on improving the conditions under which the farmers themselves live. He says to the county councils: "You can strike a rate for the purpose of having water supplies and sewerage schemes in certain towns." If, however, that council decide to spend money on certain byroads he immediately surcharges them. That is the sort of power which we have seen the Minister and the whole Cumann na nGaedheal Party give to local authorities. That is the sort of power that they do not want. Deputy Sir James Craig said that he was prepared to accept the Bill as introduced by the Minister as against our amendment. He said that we did not or could not define the proportion of the amount for which the State would be liable, but surely he must know that it would be impossible to define that amount until an inquiry was held and until it was ascertained what the people who would be directly benefited as a result of the scheme would be able to pay.

It is not any more defined in the Minister's Bill.

That is so. There is no point in that at all, because, as Deputy de Valera points out, it is not defined in the Bill any more than in the amendment. There is just one question we have got to ask ourselves. Do we want to see public health conditions improved or do we not? If we do, which of these two methods is the better? If we want to get a proper answer to that question I think everybody will agree that our method of getting a solution to this difficulty is the only one. Just as the Minister in his legislation regarding drainage tried to give it out that he had given powers to these local councils, and that it was their responsibility now to go ahead with the work, he tries to create a similar impression now. It is all camouflage, like the other legislation passed by his Department. It is simply an effort to go to the country and say: "I gave them the necessary legislation and it is for the local people to implement it." If we want to see these conditions improved, I say that those who approach the matter in the way in which we approach it will agree that ours is the only solution for the problem.

I would like to know from the Minister what limits has he attached to this question of improved sanitary conditions. Is a town defined by a certain population, by a certain number of houses, or is it open to any district in any part of the county that may put forward a reasonable scheme for sanitary improvements to have its case considered by the county council and dealt with if that body is satisfied that such facilities are required? Speaking generally on the Bill, I can thoroughly agree with Deputy Smith when he says that this is an effort on the part of the Minister to deal with the question by washing his hands of it in a very ineffective way. To ask the county council at the present time to strike a rate for the improvement of sanitary conditions in towns, as towns are generally understood in the country, is asking them to do the impossible. Any Deputy who is a member of a public board realises the great difficulty and how many unsuccessful attempts have been made to get the county council to strike a rate, in some cases for the improvement of their own industrial interests. To ask them under present conditions to strike a rate for the improvement of sanitary conditions is unquestionably asking them for something which we know in advance they will not concede.

It is all very fine to imagine that they will, and that by imposing a graduated rate, ranging in extent from those who immediately benefit in accordance with the proximity of the ratepayers to the area which benefits, you will get them to agree. It is all very well to imagine that, but in reality we who live in the country know that the average farmer has a very indifferent right of way to his house. He must travel under very unsatisfactory conditions over that right of way to get to the country road in bad weather, with, perhaps, wet feet. He has to do all that under very unhealthy conditions, and we can understand the mentality of that man when he says: "It is absurd to ask me to contribute to a sewerage scheme or to a water supply for the people who live in the town and who undoubtedly enjoy greater facilities than I and my family do." What will be the position of the farmer who has to send his children trudging over the muddy country roads to a school where 40 or 80 children are assembled and where practically no sanitary arrangements exist? Would it not be a much more reasonable proposition to suggest that a rate should be struck to provide these children with facilities to get over these dirty roads other than by tramping them on foot, to provide them with proper facilities in school and with some form of a meal while they are there, or to provide them with some sanitary arrangements that would be an improvement on the very primitive conditions that now exist in most of these places?

Under these conditions, as the Minister must know, his present proposal is absurd. As Deputy Smith had stated, it is merely an attempt to hand the responsibility over to the local boards so that he can say that he gave them power when he knows very well that they will not be in a position to deal with them. Since the Minister took up office he has spent all his energy in centralising authority. He has deprived public boards of the right to make ordinary appointments in the way of officers whom these boards may require. He has deprived them of the right of contracting in the ordinary way for the supply of clothes and other articles for the institutions under their control. He has centralised these institutions, and he knows it has not proved satisfactory. Notwithstanding all that, he advocates centralisation, which undoubtedly means a reduction of the powers of development in country towns. On this one question alone, and it is a vital question, it is rather strange that he should depart from the idea of centralisation which he adopted so strenuously and go back to the other method of decentralisation, handing back to the local authorities the power of which he deprived them in regard to other services on which they might function. Clearly the Minister is not sincere in this effort. The only practical solution of the problem is contained in the amendment proposed and advocated from those benches. That is, if there is a grievance it is a national grievance, and it should be dealt with in a national way.

It is certainly very interesting to see the Cumann na nGaedheal members and their loyal supporters, the Independent members, searching for some sort of excuse to vote against the amendment introduced by Deputy de Valera. Deputy Sir James Craig from Trinity told us how interested he was in public health and how he had fought for it all his life. Then Deputy O'Higgins told us the same thing and opposed the amendment on the grounds that we wanted to keep the power out of the hands of the county council. Deputy Carey said he would be against this Bill if it meant putting a rate for more than a year on the area not directly benefited. Then, lest he might find out in the course of the discussion that the Bill was going to put a rate for many years on the areas outside that directly benefited, he left the House. It is a pity Deputy Craig did not remain also to listen to the debate. He might have discovered the attitude of people throughout the country towards the Bill and towards taxation for local improvements. Deputy Craig may theorise in Trinity College about increasing sewerage schemes and putting additional water supplies into towns, but it all boils down to the question as to how it is to be done. We know that for many years, because farmers and others who did not benefit directly had to pay, they used their influence to hold up such improvements.

The Minister and his Government stand for centralising authority, but they always try to decentralise the collection of taxes. They tell the local county council whom to appoint, and use the jack-boot to kick people into the appointments, but when it comes to the payment of these officials they see that their friends, the high income tax payers, and others are not called upon to pay. We want to give authority to the county council, and want to put them in a position to do what they should do. We propose that the local bodies would run the schemes, and that over and above what the people directly benefited would pay the central authority should pay. If we want to see these schemes put through, that must be the system adopted. The Ministers, of course, want to continue the old system they used when they sent Deputy O'Higgins down to County Meath and forced the County Council to give him his thousand a year. When he draws up the schemes he knows perfectly well they cannot be put into operation by the local ratepayers. It was most amusing to hear Deputy O'Higgins talking about our amendment going to take power out of the hands of the county councils. The county councils unfortunately had not the power to reject Deputy Dr. O'Higgins or people like him who were foisted on them, and they had to pay them. We want to relieve the county councils of the burden of paying the sums that are necessary in addition to what the local people can pay for those schemes, and there has been no case made against it.

If Deputy Craig knows anything about any part of the country, and if he is sincere in his statement that he wants to see sewerage schemes and waterworks gone on with, he will vote for our amendment. In Co. Louth alone, one of the smallest counties in the country, there are at least 12 towns and villages that want sewerage and water schemes, and the 3d. rate all over the county, together with what the local towns could bear, would not be sufficient to go ahead with these things in any reasonable time. It might do it over a period of 100 years, but we want to see it done right away and to see these areas get the sewerage schemes and the waterworks which they require. It will be necessary for the Government to step in and help the local authority. They prate all round the country about our credit being high, but when it comes to seeing that credit is used for the benefit of the local people they are very backward in utilising it along those ways.

I support the amendment to this Bill. I do so from my experience in the Mayo County Council. The Minister has taken up a sneering attitude with regard to the proposal of Deputy de Valera in making a large proportion of the charge a national responsibility. He has asked in a rather sneering fashion what the cost of the national liability might be. I am sure the Minister is not so ignorant as not to be aware of how the Drainage Acts and certain proposed drainage schemes are being affected by a proposal similar to that contained in this Bill. Deputy O'Connell will agree with me when I say that some very desirable drainage schemes in the County Mayo had to be dropped owing to the very fact that it was impossible to get the County Council to give the necessary guarantee from the county funds. That is the very motive that will affect all those proposed public health schemes, the reluctance of people who are not directly benefiting to contribute to schemes from which they do not benefit. The Minister now proposes to stabilise this position and he asks us for an estimate of the possible national liability if our amendment is accepted. The very reason why we could not agree as members of the Mayo County Council to accept proposals that there should be contribution from the county at large for such schemes is that, up to the present, we could not estimate our liability, because the liability would really be governed by the precedent of giving a contribution for any specific scheme. Immediately we pay for one every other area in the whole county will begin making their demand and we could not know where we would stop.

I would like the Deputy to understand that I did not ask for the total liability, but I did ask what percentage the State would bear in those schemes.

I would not attempt to make any suggestion to the Minister, because the local circumstances would determine the cost of each scheme.

And then following the Deputy's own experience in Mayo everyone would come along and want a higher percentage.

Not necessarily.

Would not the Minister do as he did in Mayo, send down a rubber stamp?

It is easier to send down a rubber stamp than money.

The Minister has an example of what was done with the Road Fund. That money was capitalised and the money borrowed spent on a road scheme. I see no difficulty why some such scheme could not be found to finance those projects. As Deputy Smith pointed out, this Bill is going to get us no further. If the Bill passes, the position this time three years is going to be the same as to-day. Local influences and jealousy will still work. The total amount—I am giving a rough estimate—that could be got from a rate of 3d. in Mayo is £4,000 or £5,000. It is quite possible that the charges for necessary and urgent public health schemes in the County Mayo would be a lot greater than £5,000 a year. I am not going to say they would; neither am I going to say they would not. The Minister as has been pointed out has left it optional to the county council which produces the situation which exists at the present time.

On the other hand I know of schemes at present being discussed in the Co. Mayo in which it is being considered if left to the area of charge it will mean 5/- or 6/- in the £. Does the Minister realise what that means in small towns where there are a lot of labourers whose maximum wage may be only 25/- a week? They are probably paying 5/- a week rent for houses. Is the landlord going to pay that additional 5/-in the £ valuation for their benefit, or is he going to increase the rents and how are they going to pay out of their low wage? If the Minister wants those projects to be undertaken and to go ahead there is only one way of doing it and that is by the manner by which the Road Fund was handled, making it in some ways a national charge, getting that money from people who would directly benefit and putting the incidence of that taxation on the people who would get the greatest benefit, the wealthiest classes in those small towns. Oftentimes the people who agitate most for those schemes are the wealthy shopkeepers in the main streets. We all realise that in most cases the schemes are necessary and urgent but those people often ignore the poorer classes in the locality and they create sometimes an artificial public opinion in favour of certain projects. They do not consider the charges which may fall on people who will scarcely get any benefit out of the schemes as long as they get what they consider necessary luxuries themselves. I again repeat if the Minister wants the projects to be undertaken and to go ahead, he will in some way provide a substantial national contribution that will prevent an undue burden being placed on the poorer classes and especially on the people who do not benefit directly from these schemes. If he does not there is going to be no development.

Mr. Brodrick

Deputies who spoke against this Bill have apparently formed the opinion that local authorities will act in the future as they did in the past. Even Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Walsh were of that opinion. Local authorities could not give any contribution towards sewerage and water schemes in the past. Under this Bill local authorities can do so, and they can widen and extend the area of charge. I think it is not fair to assume that these local authorities will adopt the same attitude in the future as they did in the past. The circumstances are entirely different; and if this Bill is passed I think it is most unfair that Deputies should really advise local authorities not to accept it. It remains with the local authorities to work it or not. We heard a good deal of grousing in this House year after year about the insanitary condition of our towns and villages. I always notice that where there is a big and troublesome problem to be tackled, just as this is, the cry from the Opposition—and it certainly is a very popular cry for the Opposition—is, "Make it a national charge." Three or four years ago when a Relief Vote was being passed in this House for the provision of sewerage and water schemes in the smaller towns, I think the Minister was prepared to contribute one-fifth of the total cost. I am aware that schemes were not carried out then because the areas of charge were too small and the local authorities could not give a sufficient contribution. A rate of 1½d. in the £ will mean about £3,000 in one year in County Galway. We have to look at the other side of the question, however. We hear so much of disease breaking out in small towns for want of water supplies or sewerage schemes. We also know what the cost of fever outbreaks in these small towns comes to, and I am sure the Minister will be able to give us the figures showing how this cost falls on the rural population in order to cope with the disease. We know what it costs to maintain patients in the fever and central hospitals in the different counties, and that most of the expense has to be borne by the farmers. We know that the farmers have been hard hit, but in considering this Bill we must look at what they have to pay when outbreaks of fever occur in small towns. I think if that expense was put up against the contribution to be given towards these schemes by local authorities there would be very little difference.

If this Bill is passed it will certainly give local authorities a chance of doing what they have been trying to do. It is not fair to say here that local authorities have not made every effort to provide water supplies and sewerage schemes. They have done so, but they had not the power, and they could not get the people to pay a rate in order to proceed. It is only fair to give local authorities a chance of deciding what they are prepared to do under this Bill. It is easy to say that the cost of this Bill should be made a State charge. If we take all the money that has been provided, even under relief grants for sewerage schemes and water supplies, it will be found that the general taxpayer is paying a fairly large amount of the cost. I would ask the House not to accept the amendment, because it is not fair that the local authorities should not get a chance of dealing with any schemes that might be promoted under the Bill. I believe that the local charges will not be very much more than 1½d., and in Galway that amount will realise £3,000 in one year. I believe that in any one year, half of that amount would not be required to help such schemes.

I expected Deputy Brodrick to deal with Deputy de Valera's amendment, because he started off by opposing certain things being made a national charge. We find Deputy Brodrick and others like him opposed to sewerage schemes being a national charge, but they have not the slightest objection to drawing an Army pension from the national purse. When it comes to himself he does not object to his purse being filled by an Army pension out of the national charge.

Mr. Brodrick

It does not need any publication: everyone knows it.

When local schemes are under consideration, and when certain aristocrats in the towns have to be considered, the Deputy would much prefer saddling the expense on the people living around the town, generally the poor people, and making them pay rather than have the richer classes paying their due share and doing something to remedy a very great national evil. I would like to hear from Deputy Brodrick and from other Deputies on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches something against this amendment. Why is it that the amendment is less acceptable to them than the futile proposal of the Minister? One of the big lessons learned here—certainly by Deputies on these benches—was the gigantic failure of the Arterial Drainage Act. When that Act was being passed we were told that great things were going to be done and drainage schemes carried out in every county. because of the powers given to the local committees and the county councils. The Minister or Deputy Brodrick cannot get up to-day and point to a single scheme of any value that was carried out under the Arterial Drainage Act. Here is the very same thing.

Mr. Brodrick

Does the Deputy know that £20,000 was sanctioned for arterial drainage in Galway?

It is generally admitted that the Arterial Drainage Act has been a huge failure.

Mr. Brodrick

Not in Galway.

The same method is being attempted by the Minister in connection with this matter. He proposes to give the county councils certain powers, and pretends that the way is open to them to carry out these schemes. I would prefer that Deputies would criticise our amendment. Perhaps there is a weakness in it, and we would like to have it pointed out. Neither the Minister nor Deputies have attempted to point out any weak point in it. Deputy Sir James Craig said he was opposed to the amendment, but his only reason was that anything was better than nothing at all, and that any improvement on the present Act would be a good thing. Deputy O'Higgins said the same thing. Our attitude is that this is no better than the present system. If this great national evil is to be remedied it is better to do it in the right way from the start, rather than be patching up a very bad scheme afterwards. You will find it more expensive to carry out schemes of this kind in this way than by tackling the question as a big national problem as was suggested when the question of arterial drainage was being considered.

I am confident, from my knowledge of localities in Mayo, that people living adjacent to small towns would be victimised to a great extent under the Bill introduced by the Minister. If it is just, as the Minister pretends, to think of putting the burden of the upkeep or the carrying out of a sewerage scheme in a local town on the people who live adjacent to that town and who get no benefit from it, it is equally just to make it a national charge. I am sure that very great assistance would be given to the Minister by the members on these benches and on the Labour Benches if he tackled this matter in a big national way, and then something would be done. Under these proposals you will find in three years' time that fewer water and sewerage schemes have been carried out than in the past under existing circumstances. We were attacked when we opposed the Second Reading of this Bill before the adjournment, and the Minister and the President argued that we were holding up the Relief Vote by preventing the Bill being passed to enable the county councils to carry out such schemes. You will find if you pass this Bill in spite of our opposition, that very few schemes will be adopted by the local bodies under the Bill, and that no appreciable amount of relief work will be given, because the local bodies are not fools, even though the Minister thinks they are, and they will not accept a scheme of this kind.

You will always have local jealousy as some Deputy said. I am probably going to make an unpopular statement when I say that I consider that even the people's prejudices should be respected at times. In certain localities you will find schemes being opposed because of local prejudices and jealousies due to the cost being unfairly put upon some people, while others who will get the benefit of these schemes will not be asked to pay their due share as compared with those who get no benefit. You will find those prejudices preventing the schemes being carried out as happened under the Arterial Drainage Act. The Minister will argue that the County Councils have power to do it themselves; that if the local towns do not want sewerage schemes carried out they will have themselves to blame; that the boards of health have to sanction the schemes and that the Minister only comes in later to accept or reject the schemes.

What is to happen if you pass this Bill and give these powers in cases where you have no county council? What is to happen in a case like Mayo where you have the Minister's. "rubber stamp" administering the affairs of the county? Who is to decide whether schemes are to be carried out? Will influential people in certain towns bring influence to bear on the Minister's "rubber stamp," to have certain schemes accepted and the cost put on the local people who will get no benefit? Are those schemes to be carried out against the opposition of the local people? Perhaps the Minister will continue his jack-boot policy and abolish a number of other councils and then he will have his "rubber stamp" in counties where schemes are to be carried out to suit the aristocrats and the rich people in the towns at the expense of the poor. We are opposed to that and we propose a more just and a better method, and that is that the question be taken up in a national way. Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies should realise that that is the proper way to tackle this question and should accept the amendment and they will find that more work will be done and that there will be co-operation amongst Deputies to make this scheme a success.

What has struck me about this discussion is that a number of Deputies who have spoken from the Opposition Benches would appear not to have read this Bill at all. This amendment is in the name of Deputy O'Kelly. Deputies from the other side of the House have attrihuted this amendment to Deputy de Valera.

Acting-Chairman

He moved it on behalf of Deputy O'Kelly.

They attributed the amendment to Deputy de Valera. There was no mention made of Deputy O'Kelly. The House was led to believe that these Deputies never gave the slightest consideration to the Bill. The most extraordinary feature about it is that they have not even read the amendment and they proceed to dictate the ways and means by which those schemes should be carried out and how the expenses should be defrayed. The only conclusion I can come to is that just because Deputy de Valera proposed this amendment in the absence of Deputy O'Kelly they thought it was all right. The Bill as introduced is a proper Bill. If a county or a town benefit by a water scheme or a drainage scheme the local authority should be made responsible and have some liability for the money expended. It would be delightful, of course, if Deputies could go back to the county councils and urban councils and tell them that they had extracted a sum of money from the Exchequer to be expended ad lib at the sweet will of Deputy Smith, or Deputy Maguire, or Deputy Aiken, in any way they liked.

The State has a responsibility to everyone in it. The county councils and the urban councils are responsible to those whom they represent. They must discharge their duty in the way that they think fit and proper and get full value for the money and for every pound of their expenditure, but if the money is to be a grant or contribution from the State or the Exchequer we know very well where it will go. The Government that would hand over the entire sum, or 75 per cent. of the sum, necessary for the carrying out of such schemes would not get value for their money. I happen to be a member of one of those councils, and I am not under any misapprchension as to the expenditure by the county council, and when it comes to placing responsibility on the county councils and the urban councils and making them liable for certain sums of money they expend they certainly will see that they get the best value for the money so spent.

The only other feature I see about this amendment is that those interested in it expect one of those days the report of the De-rating Commission. It would appear to me that this amendment is a sort of counterblast to the report anticipated from the De-rating Commission. It would seem to say to the farmers, "You are not going to have it all your own way; we must get some of the spoils: you cannot have it both ways." The farmers cannot have de-rating of agricultural land unless the cost of this is extracted from the sums to be recommended for de-rating. I do not know what sums are to be recommended or whether there will be any sum or not. This is a counterblast. In general, we find where grants are given we do not always get the full value. I know if Deputies on the other side had given consideration to this matter they would not have gone so far as to attack this Bill in the manner they have done. They should consider it from the point of view of the country in general, and that it is universal in this that it attempts to improve the conditions throughout the country and to make them better than they are, and to get the county councils and the urban councils and the sanitary authorities responsible for these schemes interested, in so much as they are contributing bodies as well as the parties directly interested.

We all know that throughout the country there is great need for water and sewerage schemes and all that. But at the present moment I do not think the Government should be forced along lines of embarking on very large projects that would involve the country in extraordinary cost and expense. The Government have proceeded along lines infinitely in advance of anything the people of this country ever expected. They have reached a stage in providing housing for the people of this country that was not expected to be reached for the next twenty years, and the national purse and the ratepayers and the people of the country generally have to find the money necessary no matter in what form it was subscribed. That is the initial stage in which the money must be got. There is no other means of getting it.

What the Minister ought to do in these matters is that if schemes are put up they should be investigated, and I am sure they are investigated. He should see the necessity for them and provide schemes in accordance with the requirements of any particular area, and so far as the ability of that particular area goes to pay for such schemes. But the elaborate schemes which some people have in mind to be provided, out of national funds, are not needed in this country for some time. We must proceed on moderate lines for a few years to come. and I think we will be able to persevere as a healthy nation with minor schemes without embarking on the great wholesale schemes which we are asked to undertake in the near future. We know it is highly desirable to have efficient water supplies and proper sewerage schemes throughout the country, but we know that people must cut their cloth according to their measure. It would be highly desirable if people could live in modern houses with all modern requirements, with arrangements for baths, elaborate ranges and lighting if they could afford it. Most people cannot afford to do it. People must cut their cloth according to their measure and make provision according to their means. If grandiose schemes are embarked on with the aid of the ratepayers and taxpayers' money, it will be found that this country cannot stand it. There are many requirements by local authorities from time to time, some of them very elaborate, but the country is not in a position to pay for enormous schemes or the requirements necessary to bring us actually up to date.

In this Bill we have sufficient material to go on with, and all the essentials required and make the county councils and the urban councils and the contributing bodies responsible for their share in the expenditure. If there is a State grant available for such work well and good; there should be reasonable contribution from it. This amendment is not worthy of the occasion. It is a very large proposition. The change sought here would require much more consideration than could be given to it by an amendment of this nature to this Bill. It would involve many thousands, probably some millions of money, if an amendment of this character were adopted. It is not at all a proposal worthy of consideration. I cannot see anything in it except that it is a counterblast to something else. I trust that the House, having regard to the fact that those who propose this amendment do not seem to have read the Bill or the amendment, will reject the amendment if it comes to a division.

After the contradictory remarks of Deputy Connolly I should like to remind him that at least three Deputies referred to the amendment which was actually introduced by Deputy de Valera in the unavoidable absence of Deputy O'Kelly. The House may not have had the advantage of the presence of Deputy Connolly when that matter was being discussed. The Deputy said rightly whether they were taxes or rates that were paid for such schemes they came out of the pockets of the people. The Deputy proceeded to tell us that our amendment was absolutely unworthy because it entailed the expenditure of thousands of pounds. I do not see exactly how that is consistent. The amendment apparently was not read by the Deputy, because it would not, to use his own words, force the Government along lines involving thousands of pounds. It would not force them anywhere. The final word would be with the Minister. The Deputy said this was a matter that required grave consideration. Certainly, and because it requires greater consideration than has apparently been given to it by either the Deputy or the Minister we ask that the Bill should not get a Second Reading and that our amendment should be given consideration. The thing is not a counterblast to de-rating or anything else.

Because we genuinely believe that the Minister's measure will not work and that the schemes will not be carried out we are proposing this amendment. We genuinely believe that the Bill will not work. Deputy Brodrick referred to the county councils and said that they should be given a chance. The Deputies on the other side are now great advocates of the county councils but not in the making of appointments. It is only in the matter of spending the money that they are prepared to leave the county councils any power. They will let the county councils tax themselves. If Deputy Brodrick knows the temper of the ratepayers of Galway or the farmers of Galway he will realise that the chance of getting schemes there carried through is very small at present. Any Minister or Cumann na nGaedheal Deputy who has been out recently at meetings or conventions and who will genuinely report here what has been said to him, will agree that the chance of getting money passed by the county councils for sewerage or water schemes is very slight indeed.

We realise with Deputy Connolly that it is the people who will have to pay in any case, but we consider that the fairest distribution of the burden in providing sewerage or waterworks is by making of it a national charge. Deputy Sir James Craig says that we do not fix the amount under the amendment. Neither does the Bill. These things are fixed at an inquiry. An inquiry is held, and at that inquiry the charges are fixed. That would be the position under the amendment just as it is under the Bill. I wonder what is going to happen where the county council's affairs are being worked by Commissioners. Is the Commissioner to have thirty votes? If the council has so many votes one way, is he to have so many votes the other way? Or is he just to decide that the county is going to have water schemes and put it on the rates in spite of what the people may think? There should be provision in the Bill as to what is to happen where a county has a Commissioner. The country is likely to have more Commissioners. I believe Galway is in danger of having a Commissioner. Deputy Sir James Craig said that the schemes run by the Government are more expensive than schemes run by local bodies. What is to prevent these schemes being run locally? Nothing. A town wants a sewerage or a waterworks scheme. The public health authorities will have something to say to these. An inquiry will be held, and the works will be supervised by the engineers from the Board of Works. It will not mean that the contractor and his men and the inspectors will come down from Dublin. The work will be done locally with supervision by a Government Department, and I think you are much more likely to get these things that are necessary for the public health well done in that way, and it will not be more expensive to the councils. It would be a fairer method of distributing the burden to have the amendment passed. If the amendment is adopted and a new Bill brought in, it would be better for the public health than to pass this Bill as it is.

The Bill is of such a nature that no amendment except the amendment moved by Deputy de Valera would be of any use. The Bill is such that it cannot be amended in Committee to embody the proposal foreshadowed in the amendment. The amendment is the only alternative to the Bill, and I think the Minister would be well advised to withdraw the Bill and have its proposals reexamined. It is quite possible that the Minister for Finance, with the assistance of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Works, could draft a scheme so as to have the finances something on the same lines more or less as in the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925. In some counties that Act has worked fairly well, but in other counties it has not worked at all. In any case, the finances of the Arterial Drainage Act are set out in such a way as to include a State contribution up to 50 per cent., with contributions from the local council, say, up to 20 per cent., and the remainder to be derayed by the area benefited. That is one suggestion that might meet the situation. In any case, the Bill is absolutely hopeless as it stands. In view of recent legislation in this House it is clear that the rates will be increased by an amount of from 2d. to 4d. in the £ this year. The rates will be increased by the Vocational Education Act, and the Agriculture Bill now before the House will also increase the rates. Then there are other charges for diseases of animals. Owing to these causes the local authorities will shoulder heavier burdens this year than they did in recent years. When introduced in the last session this Bill was a purely emergency measure in connection with the Unemployment Relief Vote. It was presumed on that occasion that portion of £300,000 passed by this House for the relief of unemployment would go to finance schemes of this nature. When we have finished with that £300,000—and I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries has said that he has almost disposed of it already—where are we going to get the money afterwards? The Party at this side of the House has been criticised by the Minister and the President for not allowing the Bill to pass on the last occasion, overlooking the fact that it is purely a retrospective measure and that it covers anything that has been done within the financial year. Therefore, there should have been no excitement about it on that occasion. Even in the interval I do not think that it received the consideration from the Minister's Department nor from the Deputies on the other side of the House that it should. The Bill, in any opinion, is a non-partisan measure. With the solitary exception of some of the Minister's supporters the Bill has been treated as such.

I would advise the Minister strongly. even at this stage, to indicate what measure of grant the Minister's De partment will give in aid of these schemes — what is expected of the local authorities and how much the people directly benefited are to meet-These are points that I would like to have cleared up. There is absolutely no use in a measure dependent upon relief schemes or upon unemployment schemes that may be introduced from time to time. The finances of the measure should be definite, and there should be so much voted by this House and not be depending on the unemployment problem in the country. The national health problem is quite another problem in itself. It would not be right to say that a town should wait for a sewerage scheme or a waterworks scheme until there is unemployment in that town. A measure of sanitation should not depend on unemployment. The Bill does not meet the necessities of the times. It does not accord with the views or wishes of the local authorities. If it is such a measure as can be amended it is worth our while to amend it.

It has been complained of in the country, and it has been more or less a genuine complaint, that legislation passed in this House has been rushed to such an extent that we find in its administration afterwards grave defects. It would have been a good thing if when the Local Officers and Employees Bill was going through this House in 1926 it met with the criticism that this Bill has met with. It would have saved the Minister for Local Government from some of the disabilities under which has Department labours as a result of that measure.

The only effective amendment is to reject the Bill as it stands and have a Bill introduced that will embody the proposals that this amendment foreshadows. I see no special virtue in the Bill as it stands, and the amendment is the only effective amendment that could be made at this stage by a private member. It has been stated that the amendment does not specify the amount. No Deputy of this House other than a Minister could state the amount, and, therefore, the amendment is the only possible alternative, and I would ask the House to vote for it in preference to the Bill.

A special reference has been made here to the failure of the Minor Schemes Drainage Act. I would like to say a word about it as illustrative of the position that is before us. Two Deputies from County Mayo have pointed out that the Act put a class of work as a responsibility on local bodies and that they are not carrying out that work, that in Mayo particularly minor drainage schemes have come before the county council and that they have been turned down by the county council. I understand the suggestion from the two Deputies who have spoken is that these minor drainage schemes were good schemes that ought to have been carried out. I wonder if I am mistaken in that view.

Is the Minister trying to make it an excuse for the abolition of the county council?

No. I am trying to understand what the Deputies ment by saying that schemes of drainage were turned down by the county council and that it ought to have been the responsibility of the central Government to go ahead with them. I am trying to find out whether or not they were turned down in spite of the fact that they were good schemes, because there is no point in referring to the matter unless that is so. So I have assumed that the Deputies who have spoken are complaining that because a certain thing was the responsibility of the local body good schemes were turned down because the local body would have to bear a certain amount of the expenses in connection with them. The suggestion, as far as I see it, is that good drainage schemes were turned down throughout the country by certain county councils and that if the central Government were responsible these schemes would have been gone ahead with and some one would have paid. I wonder who would have paid. If we take the position as stated by Deputy O'Dowd, 80 per cent. of the central revenue of this country comes from the pockets of the farmers, and the very people in whose interests apparently the county councils turn down these schemes would have to pay. So I do not understand why, if the Deputy wants to protect the farmers, county schemes likely to be turned down by local bodies in the interests of the farmers should be carried out by the central authority at the expense of the farmers. It is a matter I would like to have cleared up. I do not know whether the Deputy accepts Deputy O'Dowd's statement that the farmers of the country are providing 80 per cent. of the central revenue.

Importance has been laid from every side of the House on the necessity for providing towns, small and large, with suitable water supplies and proper sanitary accommodation, and exception is taken to this Bill because it does not provide that, right from to-morrow, all the small villages mentioned by Deputy Ward in Monaghan, and all the small villages that are in Cork, and in other parts of the country, are to be provided with water and suitable sanitary accommodation. The Bill is to be turned down because a great national scheme will not be gone ahead with to provide water and sanitary accommodation for these places, and that it would be cheaper to do that. Deputy Hogan, of Clare, tried to say a good word for the work that the county councils had done, in spite of the fact that Deputy de Valera finds that the legislation under which our small towns were provided with waterworks and sewerage schemes in the past had no principle upon which it was based. In spite of that fact a very considerable amount of good work has been done throughout the country, and supported by the farmers, and paid for in part by the farmers, for the provision of water and sanitary accommodation for our smaller towns. Even in very recent years there has been a considerable amount of expenditure towards that end. During the last seven years the amount of loans provided for waterworks in the country and repayable from the local authorities, whether urban or rural, has been approximately £700,000, and during the same seven year period, from 1924 to 1930 inclusive, for sewerage there has been an expenditure of £448,000. So that a considerable amount of work is being done. Apparently, although there is no principle lying at the bottom of the legislation under which this has been done, there has been a certain amount of good machinery—no principle but good works. Deputy de Valera provides us now with principle but with no good works, because while Deputy Walsh, from Mayo, wants the main cost of water and sewerage schemes borne by the rich persons in the town, according to Deputy O'Dowd, Deputy de Valera's principle would put a big amount of the cost of those schemes on the farmers who according to Deputy O'Dowd, provide 80 per cent. of our central taxation.

Deputies on the far benches and also those on the Labour Benches tend to set their objective behind the blue haze and to tell us that if we march on in that direction all these little difficulties will solve themselves in time. They say that an inquiry will tell us how much of the cost of the extension of waterworks in the City of Dublin should be borne by the farmers in Eastern Galway or in Western Galway, and that in the same way inquiry will tell us how much of the cost of waterworks or a sewerage scheme in Ballyhaunis is to be borne by the farmers of North Cork, and how much by the citizens of Dublin.

How can Dublin come into it?

If you are going to adopt the principle that waterworks and sewerage schemes have to be paid for in part by the State.

What about the Special Expenses Bill?

The Special Expenses Bill relates to the whole country.

It does not.

At any rate, the Deputy's amendment relates to the whole country.

It does not. It relates to this Bill.

Am I to understand that urban authorities shall not receive any grant from State funds for the extension of waterworks or the provision of sewerage schemes?

It is not in the Bill, nor is it in the amendment.

Are we to understand that urban districts are not to expect State assistance, but that a town like Thurles would have to provide all its own money for the extension of its sewerage scheme, while a town like Roscrea shall get a grant from State funds?

It is not in the original Bill, and the amendment has relation to that.

The amendment says that we are not to do anything until the whole position is examined. It is a practice that urban districts have to bear the whole of the cost. Are urban districts in future, with the adoption of this principle, to be allowed to escape some of the charges because the cost of bearing them would raise the rates in those urban districts too much?

Does the Minister want me to answer now?

I would like to know what the amendment means.

The amendment relates to a special Bill brought in here having definite relation to rural sanitary authorities. That was the Bill. The amendment has relation to that particular problem. If the Minister wants to go outside that and to talk generally as to whether urban areas shall bear the whole of the cost or otherwise, I would say that the determination of that cost should be in relation to the ability of the particular area to bear it, just as in the case of Oldcastle the Minister evidently was satisfied, after inquiry, that a rate of 1/3½ or one-sixth of the total cost would not be too much to expect from Oldcastle. How did he arrive at that? By having a definite examination of the case. Accordingly, if that principle were embodied in the Bill, a similar inquiry and similar power on the part of the Minister has to be understood. Obviously there will have to be an inquiry. Is the Minister going to make general the rate which he thinks is sufficient in the case of Oldcastle, and will he say that one-sixth is always going to be the particular proportion to be paid by the particular area benefiting? Of course not. As regards Dublin, no reasonable person will find fault with any Bill which makes Dublin, or any urban district that is sufficiently large, bear the cost of its own scheme. This Bill, however, refers to rural areas, and it is the unfairness of asking a farmer who happens to be living adjoining a place like Oldcastle to contribute to the cost of such a scheme that caused this amendment to be brought in, as well as to facilitate the State generally in getting the kind of public health services which are necessary for the good of the community. There are two ideas, and the Minister is only playing with the question when he tries to make capital out of the fact that there is no definite ratio mentioned or that we have not dealt with problems outside the general scope of the Bill.

The principle of State assistance really then can be applied to urban districts if the cost falls too heavily?

Exactly, but it is not in this particular Bill. You were asking my opinion of it.

I am concerned in the Bill with rural districts, and I will help them by means of the Bill, if I get it; but the Deputy must know that provision is not going to be made by which State grants will be given in a certain proportion for the provision of waterworks and sewerage schemes throughout the country. The House is in the position that it must accept this Bill as an addition to the present powers of local authorities or do without it. Deputy Boland practically suggested that this Bill is simply an adjunct of the Relief Vote voted before Christmas. That is not so. I was anxious to get the Bill, as we were using the Relief Vote, voted before Christmas, for the furtherance of public health schemes and as a further assistance to overcoming the objections of local authorities to these schemes at present by lightening the cost of such schemes falling on the farming population.

In regard to this Bill, has the Minister been advised that in its present terms it would not prevent any area which got a relief grant from availing of the facilities provided by such grant? If the Minister will look at the top of page 3 he will see it stated that the capital cost of the work is to be defrayed out of borrowed money.

Yes. I will have the point which the Deputy makes examined: but it is not intended that the acceptance of a grant for relief schemes will prevent the sub-division of the area of charge in the way proposed here. If any difficulty arises as a result of the phrasing we can have it remedied on Committee. As I explained, however. I wanted this Bill at the time we were inducing public bodies to embark on such schemes, by defraying part of the cost out of the Relief Vote. This Bill, however, is not by any means simply an adjunct of the Relief Vote. Deputy Fahy says that no work will be done under this Bill, and that the schemes will not work. He spoke of Gort, but really he does not know what the position in Gort is.

The following is an extract from a letter written by the Acting-Secretary of the Galway County Council on 22nd October last:

The Council is, in fact, anxious that the Gort water supply should be provided, but strong representations were made by the members for Gort area that the area of charge should in equity be agreed to by the Ministry as proposed by the Board of Health, namely, that the rural district of Gort contribute a sum not exceeding one penny in the £ on the rateable valuation of that area towards the cost of the scheme, the balance to be borne by the area fixed for the lighting charge of Gort town, namely, the townlands of Ballyhugh, Rathvilly and Gort, this latter area to be responsible also for the maintenance of the waterworks should the scheme be carried out.

That is, the board of health and the county council were anxious to have power to enable them to do what this Bill will enable them to do, for the purpose of providing a water scheme for the town of Gort. Gort, and I believe Oldcastle, in spite of what Deputy O'Reilly says, and other places in Cork, Sligo, and different parts of the country, are all waiting to take advantage of the relief grant. Castlepollard, from which Deputy Kennedy comes, is waiting to take advantage of this Bill, to take advantage of the relief grant and to go ahead with the scheme under which the charge will be more equitably divided than it has been in the past between those who are really benefiting directly from the scheme and those who are in the neighbouring rural areas.

The fact has been dragged across the whole of this discussion that our county council areas are not what they should be. One would imagine from Deputy O'Connell that all these areas for public health matters should be wiped out and that the nation as a whole should be treated as a public health unit. It is in keeping with some people's ideas that the country as a whole should be treated as a unit for home assistance and things like that. That brings us down to a consideration of what is local government at all. Judging by the general tone of the discussion here to-day it should be wiped out, with the result that drainage schemes and other schemes of that particular type, instead of being scrutinised locally and turned down on their merits locally, would be left unscrutinised, to be provided by a central authority here, with money from withheld land annuities, sweeps, or some other brain-wave which we hope we will get.

A Deputy

Just the same as the local appointments.

Or a tax on your salary.

However, the position generally is that at the present moment in Gort, Oldcastle. Drimoleague, Mountrath, Ballinakill, or any of these other areas which are waiting for sewerage or water supply schemes, if these schemes are proceeded with they will have to be done by either a charge placed on the rural districts, on the dispensary districts, the townlands or some portion of one of these areas, with either a heavy charge falling on the people directly benefiting or in an equitable charge falling on the farmers in the neighbouring area. The passage of this Bill will not prevent any local body from operating on the lines on which it has operated in the past. It will enable them to make a small contribution from county funds towards the repayment of principal and sinking fund charges. It will enable them to differentiate between the neighbouring rural area, the area immediately benefiting in the district which is made the area of charge for the scheme. In regard to the proposal to make the country as a whole the area that should make the contribution towards water and drainage schemes, whether in the rural areas or in the urban areas, the House cannot expect that any proposals like that will be put before them. The choice is whether they will give these additional powers to local bodies or leave the local bodies with the limitations which they have already and with the certainty that some useful schemes that would otherwise be proceeded with will not be undertaken.

Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 48.

  • Aird, William P.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Finlay, Thomas A.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Kelly, Patrick Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Leonard, Patrick.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • Cole, John James.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Crowley, James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis Michael.
  • De Loughrey, Peter.
  • McEóin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • 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.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Broderick, Henry.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colohan, Hugh.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, Jas.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Mullins, Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.
Tellers—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and W. Davin.
Motion declared carried.
Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 25th February.
Top
Share