Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Mar 1934

Vol. 51 No. 9

Registration of Maternity Homes Bill, 1934—Money Resolution. - Public Assistance (Acquisition of Land) Bill, 1934—Committee.

In this Act—

the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Local Government and Public Health;

the expression "public assistance authority" means a body corporate entrusted with the administration of the relief of the poor by or under any Act or any county scheme;

the expression "county scheme" has the same meaning as in the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923 (No. 9 of 1923);

the word "land" includes water and any estate or interest in land or water and any easement or right in, to, or over land or water;

the word "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister under this Act;

references to the powers and duties of a public assistance authority shall be construed as referring only to the powers and duties of such authority in relation to the administration of the relief of the poor.

Professor Thrift

I move amendment No. 1:—

In line 30, after the word "water" to add the words "but shall not include land not exceeding five acres held for any dwelling place."

The object of the amendment is to secure in the Bill something that I do not believe the boards of public assistance or the Minister would really wish to do when he comes to put the Bill into practice. I do not think the Minister would wish to seize small holdings or to curtail small holdings still more. I hope he will see his way to specify that in the Bill. If there is a small holding of up to five acres I cannot imagine that he would want to do one good thing by doing a bad thing. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary might accept both amendments in my name which have the same object, the protection of small holders. It must be possible to secure land for this purpose without doing damage to anybody. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary might accept this amendment—indeed both of them— without doing any harm to the Bill.

Dr. Ward

The difficulty I have about this particular amendment is that if we exclude the possibility of acquiring small holdings as hospital sites we may find it impossible to get a suitable site within a reasonable distance of an urban area or centre of population where we are anxious to establish an hospital. There are important matters, such as sewerage and water facilities, that have to be taken into consideration and I feel that if this amendment were accepted we might be unduly handicapped in certain isolated instances in the selection of sites. I quite realise the Deputy's point of view in relation to the amendment, but I think he can rely with safety on the Minister's good judgment, following the inquiry that will take place before a compulsory order is confirmed.

Professor Thrift

In order to give holders some feeling of security, would the Parliamentary Secretary consider whether he could not put something into the Bill which would safeguard the ordinary holder's rights so that he would not feel that he was absolutely at the mercy of the local authority, in the first place, and even of the local authority backed by the Minister? Small holders do feel that their rights of tenure are in real danger under a Bill like this.

Dr. Ward

We have already provided ample safeguards for the small holder from any undue hardship that might be inflicted by a local authority, inasmuch as the compulsory acquisition order must be confirmed by the Minister before it can become effective. The Deputy will, however, realise that hospital sites are usually acquired in towns and that the only holdings available within a reasonable distance of an urban area are small holdings. If we exempt them, it seems to me that we may be driven out into the rural districts to build hospitals and that would create an impossible position.

Mr. Dockrell

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if there is not another class of property that might be prejudiced under this section. Take the case of a fairly good residential house on a small amount of land, say, under five acres, that is only occupied for some months in the year. The Minister may say: "We will take those when we want them; they are not of very much use to their owners; and their owners will not be very much distressed by losing them." There are a number of such houses up and down the country which are maintained in a very good state of repair and give a large amount of employment to keep them in order. The fear of a thing is very often far worse than the thing itself. If this is going to result in a number of good-class residential houses not being kept in the condition in which they are kept at present, the Minister will find that the position is very much worse than if, even occasionally, he had, possibly with the fears he has in his mind, to go into the open market and purchase a dwelling such as I have referred to instead of acquiring it by compulsory powers. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that is an aspect which he has not looked into and that it is well deserving of consideration, the amount of employment such good-class residential houses give throughout the year in order to keep them in order, many of them very often with a skeleton staff of servants. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider that aspect of the case.

Mr. Good

I was anxious to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary had to say in reply to Deputy Dockrell's question. All of us know that in country districts, on the outskirts of towns, there is a substantial number of very desirable residences and this amendment seeks to preserve the amenities of those standing on less than five acres. All of us can visualise that if there is an hospital, or some local convenience, in the vicinity of such a house it is bound to injure, not alone that property, but the surrounding property for a considerable distance on either side of it. That is a thing that I am sure the Minister does not desire to do under the Bill. It is all very well to say that we should leave it to the good sense of the Minister. In many cases the Minister does not know the damage that is being done at some considerable distance away. He has only certain reports about the matter. If he were to see the place I am sure his good sense would guide him in many cases. The reports of the inquiry that is held will be before him, but those do not in all cases deal with the issue that is raised here, because that issue is not within the jurisdiction of the inquiry. It is only in a case like the present, where a Bill is before us, that we can bring forward such a case. I know it is not the intention of the Minister, but, as Deputy Thrift pointed out, to have this Act hanging over any person in such a place is an intolerable state of affairs, and will tend to depreciate the value of property. I would ask the Minister seriously to consider the question.

Dr. Ward

I do not think there is any need further to discuss the amendment. I think the reasons I gave in reply to Deputy Thrift should have been sufficiently convincing. I should think that Deputy Dockrell's arguments would have been more appropriately directed against the Second Reading of the Bill. One would gather from his remarks on this amendment that we should not take powers to acquire compulsorily sites for hospitals at all.

Mr. Dockrell

I did not say so.

Dr. Ward

I know the Deputy did not say so, but one would gather that from his remarks. Deputy Good indicates that all owners of residential holdings throughout the Free State will be in a state of panic when this Bill becomes law. It should not be necessary to inform the Deputy that we are not going to build hospitals wholesale all over the country, and that it is only in very exceptional circumstances that the powers sought in this Bill will be operated.

Mr. Good

But there is that fear.

Dr. Ward

Already we have acquired a number of hospital sites throughout the country by agreement. We intend to pursue that course as far as possible, and it is only where unreasonable difficulties are put in the way that the powers asked for in this Bill will be availed of. Deputies will probably remember that on the Second Reading I gave some instances of the exorbitant prices asked for land that was suitable as a hospital site. As soon as it is indicated to the public that the Minister would be likely to approve of a certain site, or that a certain site would probably be suitable for the purpose of building a hospital, the owner of the land demands about four or five times its market value. Very often he has no objection to the hospital being built on his land, but if it is the only suitable site available he demands a price for it which is altogether out of reason. It is only in circumstances such as these that the powers asked for in the Bill will be availed of. I do not think that Deputy Good's friends need be unduly alarmed. I do not think that the Minister will set out to acquire compulsorily residential holdings, and build hospitals in every townland. No matter how successful the sweeps may be we do not intend to do anything of that kind.

Professor Thrift

I should like to stress further Deputy Dockrell's argument, as I think it is a good one. The Minister himself says that the cases in which compulsory acquirement will take place will be small. My point is that even of that small number of cases a very small percentage will come under the amendment which I put down, whether it is a small holding of land or a small piece of land attached to a private house. What the Minister will gain by the purchase of a site by compulsion as compared with the purchase of a site in the open market I think will not at all compensate him for what will be lost, in the feeling which people will have pretty widely —however small the number of cases may be—that they are less safe in their homes than they were before. I would earnestly suggest that the Minister should consider whether he is really giving away anything of importance if he accepts an amendment of this kind.

Professor Alton

I would ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. Possibly at a further stage he could find a definition which would cover Deputy Thrift's point. I know the anxiety is a real one, and though I am satisfied that the Minister would not use his powers in any unkind or malignant way he cannot answer for his successors, and the owners of such property would like and have a right to a feeling of security. The class to which Deputy Thrift alludes is a very small one, and I think that it could be covered by some definition. Such a definition ought not to be beyond the wit of man, especially a man of the Minister's powers.

Mr. Good

Might I point out to the Minister that a five-acre holding is a small one, and on those small holdings there are substantial houses? The Minister should just picture to himself the position of a hospital building within that five acres, up against a house. What is the value of that house? It is open to him of course to take a portion of the land and to leave the house. Surely that is unfair treatment. I would seriously ask him to reconsider this question, as I am afraid it goes further than he intends it to go.

General Mulcahy

There is just another point which occurs to me on this amendment. We have heard some very high sounding sentiments and ideals from the Minister for Local Government in connection with the Town Planning Bill which has just passed through the Dáil. The Department of Local Government and Public Health are expected to say a lot from time to time about lungs, and air space, and all that kind of thing, in connection with preserving suitable atmospheres for general public health. I would also ask, in conjunction with the Deputies who have already spoken, that the Minister would consider whether he is not asking his Department to swallow some of the grand things they said about town planning generally, when he is standing out against the suggestion contained in Deputy Thrift's amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Professor Thrift

If the Minister is obdurate I cannot do any good by pressing it.

Sections 1 and 2 put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

A public assistance authority may, for the purpose of its powers and duties, acquire land either by agreement with the consent of the Minister or compulsorily under this Act and the Acts incorporated therewith.

Professor Thrift

I move amendment No. 2:—

At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—

This section shall not apply to—

(a) any "glebe" as defined by the Act of 38 and 39 Victoria, Chapter 42, which now is or hereafter shall be held or occupied by any ecclesiastical persons as by the same Act defined; or

(b) any land which consists of or forms part of land which was purchased under the provisions of the Irish Church Act, 1869, for a sum not exceeding £2,000.

I hold even stronger views on this matter. The amendment which I here propose, namely the exclusion of ecclesiastical glebes, embodies a principle which, I think, has been accepted both in the Land Act of 1923 and in all Acts which have passed enabling the acquisition of plots for small buildings. The arguments are very similar to those which we have already put forward. They apply especially, I think, to glebe houses and small lands attached to them which are most usually in close contiguity with churches. I should like to hear the Minister's views and I hope he will see his way to accept this exclusion.

Dr. Ward

I do not know whether we could have any assurance from Deputy Thrift that ecclesiastical glebes are always very small in area.

Professor Thrift

Oh, not always.

Dr. Ward

If there is surplus land available and a suitable hospital site cannot be found anywhere else, I cannot see any logical reason why the surplus glebe land ought not to be acquired, after the usual process had been carried out, and why the owners of that land should not accept the same risks and conditions as ordinary private citizens have to accept under the Bill. I foresee a further complication if the Deputy's amendment were carried. There are other religious bodies that acquire available land around an urban district and it is almost entirely in urban districts that we have run up against this difficulty of getting suitable sites. If we exempt the glebe lands, I should think that, in reason and fair play, we should have to exempt any land acquired by any other religious body or community, and again, we might find ourselves depriving the people of the most suitable site on which to erect their institution. I do not see that any convincing case can be made for it. As I said in relation to the other amendment, land will not be compulsorily acquired, or, at least, the order will have to be confirmed by the Minister, after the fullest investigation and after a public inquiry, and the Minister will certainly take into consideration all the arguments that can possibly be advanced as to why a particular plot of land should not be acquired, and I think the owners of the glebe lands ought to accept the position in relation to the compulsory order that ordinary citizens will have to accept.

Professor Thrift

In my whole argument, of course, I am not pressing for any special privileges at all, but the position is this: you want to get a site within a certain radius of a certain place—say, a small country place—and you have circular points around that place and there are a few spots in it which are obviously spots which cannot be chosen without doing damage to somebody. You gain one thing by sacrificing another advantage and I am only suggesting to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should in his Bill indicate that he already recognises that such spots are spots which ought to be put aside from the very first and that he is not handicapping himself or public bodies in making the exclusions I have indicated. The most he could secure would be a small difference in price between the purchase of the site and the acquisition of a site by reason of a compulsory price being fixed. As I have said, this principle has been accepted already, very often, if not always, and I seriously suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should continue it in the future.

Mr. Dockrell

I should like to ask if the Parliamentary Secretary would consider some such expression as "in close proximity" or something of the kind in relation to this, because, obviously, he has in his mind that there may be some enormous holding—I cannot imagine that there is such a thing —in respect of which absolutely no injustice could be done to anybody by taking a portion of it. I think, however, that he will agree that if a hospital is stuck up within a few yards of a building, it becomes a very different proposition. If the Parliamentary Secretary could put forward some such formula as I have suggested, it might help to get over the difficulty.

Professor Thrift

I had meant to add one point when I was speaking and it was, that it is the compulsoriness of the matter which is objectionable. If there was a case of a glebe of fair size, a local body would in every case, I am sure, find that it was the easiest land in respect of which to make an agreement. Many of these large glebes would be, of design and if possible, cut down and if there was any part of a large glebe land suitable for a hospital, I am perfectly certain it would be the easiest possible bit of land about which to make an agreement, either by a planning board or by the Minister himself. It is just the compulsoriness of this that I am arguing.

Dr. Ward

Deputy Thrift's admission that the only objection he has to this proposal is its compulsory nature is an argument against the entire principle of the Bill. The Bill is intended to give the Minister power compulsorily to acquire hospital sites——

Professor Thrift

That is not logical.

Dr. Ward

——and, as I have already explained to the Deputy, it is only in exceptional circumstances that these powers will have to be availed of but, again, I would ask Deputy Thrift if we exempt a certain class of land from the scope of the Bill, where are we going to draw the line? Other religious communities can come along then and say: "You exempted glebe lands from the scope of the Bill and why should you not exempt us?" and when we finish with religious communities, we will have other vested interests coming along. I think the House can, with safety, accept the Bill as it stands and rely on the justice they will undoubtedly get from the Minister, following an inquiry in respect of a compulsory order and when he is about to confirm or refuse to confirm an order compulsorily acquiring land. I do not know if Deputy Thrift has any real anxiety——

Professor Thrift

I have.

Dr. Ward

——but I feel that there is really very little substance in it and that there is no reason for his anxiety. I do not believe it would be necessary to avail of the compulsory powers in half a dozen cases in the whole Free State area, and in all probability it will never be necessary to acquire any glebe land as a hospital site, but if we exempt such lands from the scope of the Bill, we are creating difficulties for ourselves which it will be very hard to surmount in the future.

Professor Thrift

Exempt them all. It is like having half a dozen points on a circumference of a big circle— just points out of a circle.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 3 agreed to.

Sections 4 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments.

Dr. Ward

Is there any objection to taking the Report Stage now?

Professor Thrift

I do think we ought to have time to consider further amendments. The Minister has not accepted the amendments which I have put down and that has suggested to me that I might draft other amendments. I think we ought to have a little time. I should like to suggest an amendment with regard to small sized holdings, such as five-acre holdings.

Report Stage ordered for Thursday.