Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1936—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

I move that the Bill be read a Second Time.

In recent years extensive schemes for the improvement of housing, sanitary conditions and hospital services have been undertaken by local bodies. It is the established practice that expenditure on works of this nature is met by borrowing. Otherwise it would be impossible for these bodies to finance schemes such as water supplies, sewerage works, the housing of the working classes, or to erect or improve county institutions. The powers of local bodies to raise loans are regulated by statutory provisions embodied in the Local Government, Public Health and Poor Law codes, and it is a condition of the exercise of such powers that the approval of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health be first obtained. Loans may be raised either from the Local Loans Fund which is under the control of the Minister for Finance, or from banks or other sources. Where the amount proposed to be borrowed is advanced out of the Local Loans Fund, the consent of the Minister for Finance is required. In the case of urban authorities and county councils, borrowing powers may be exercised by means of an issue of stock in accordance with statutory regulations made for that purpose, and with the consent of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.

Every loan for the financing of a permanent work is repayable over a fixed number of years and is secured by a mortgage given by the borrowing authority upon the fund or rate out of which the expenditure on the work is required by statute to be met.

At the present time many public works are being undertaken by local bodies. The House is well aware that the housing programme alone entails an outlay of several millions a year. As development in this and other directions proceeds, there will be a continuous process of borrowing for many years to come, and one of the main purposes of this Bill is directed to securing greater safeguards for those who lend money to local bodies for the carrying out of public works.

I am glad to say that local bodies with very rare exceptions have a very good record for the repayment of borrowed moneys. They have shown a willing disposition to co-operate with the Government in the initiation of works that will have a beneficial effect on the health of the whole population, and I feel confident that they have the ability and the energy to carry such works through successfully. I would prefer, therefore, not to disturb by legislation or otherwise, the existing procedure for the securing of loans advanced to local bodies, but in view of the magnitude of the capital expenditure involved I feel that additional powers are necessary to strengthen the position generally. Recently an attempt was made by certain ratepayers in Listowel Urban District to repudiate all moneys borrowed by the local authority for a water supply and a housing scheme on grounds that the local authority was not properly constituted and that the amounts borrowed were in excess of the statutory limit. The council whose validity was questioned functioned in the urban district for a period of six years without any challenge to their legal status. To permit the conduct of public affairs to be questioned after such a lapse of time would invest our whole local government administration with such an element of uncertainty that progress would be impossible. As I have already indicated the full execution of the programme of works which local bodies have on hands will involve a very large capital expenditure. When moneys are advanced for the carrying out of public works, whether by the State or by banks or other persons, the lenders should not be exposed to any risks in obtaining repayment of the sums advanced by reason of any challenge to the constitution of the authority to which the money was lent. This principle is expressly embodied in statutory regulations governing the exercise of borrowing powers by local bodies by means of an issue of stock. The regulations which have been in force as far back as 1892 provide as follows:—

"A person taking or holding stock shall not be concerned to inquire or to make notice whether the creation or issue thereof was or was not within any statutory borrowing power of the urban authority, or otherwise in accordance with these regulations, or whether or not the urban authority or any meeting thereof was properly constituted or convened or whether or not the proceedings at any meeting of the urban authority were legal or regular, or to see to the application of any money raised by stock, or be answerable for any loss or misapplication thereof."

It is essential in the public interest that a similar principle should be given statutory effect in respect of mortgage loans advanced to local bodies, and Section 2 of the Bill makes provision in this respect. In addition to safeguarding the position of lenders the Bill will also afford protection to persons who have entered into or may enter into contracts with local bodies and have duly performed their parts of such contracts.

Sections 4 and 5 of the Bill deal respectively with the election of a particular member of a local authority, and the election of members of a local authority, and provide that such elections unless questioned within one year from the date on which the members come into office shall be deemed for all purposes to be valid. Section 5 provides further that where the number of persons elected is less than the full number of members of the local authority, but not less than the number of members necessary to form a quorum, the validity of the constitution of the local authority following such election shall not be questioned after one year from the date on which the elected members come into office.

Another important provision in the Bill is Section 9, dealing with the interpretation of Section 238 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878. That section governs the exercise of borrowing powers by sanitary authorities under the public health code. In sub-section (2) of that section it is enacted that the sum borrowed shall not at any time exceed, with the balances of all the outstanding loans contracted by the sanitary authority under the Sanitary Acts in the whole twice the net annual value of the premises assessable within the district in respect of which such money may be borrowed. Originally the section applied to loans raised for housing, but subsequent enactments removed all such loans outside the limit, and the limitation imposed by the section now governs the exercise of borrowing powers for sanitary works.

In the Listowel case to which I referred the points at issue, viz., the validity of the constitution of the council and the question of borrowing in excess of the limit imposed by the Public Health Act of 1878, were recently decided in the High Court. The judge upheld the validity of the constitution of the council, but in regard to the interpretation of Section 238 (2) of the Act of 1878 he decided that the limitation imposed therein on the borrowing powers of sanitary authorities was intended to be dependent upon the net security that the local authority could offer and that the construction of the sub-section which was always observed by the Local Government Board is the correct one. According to a note appended to Section 238 of the Act of 1878 in Vanston's Public Health, the Local Government Board interpreted "net annual value" in sub-section (2) of that section to mean the assessable value for the purposes of a rate. The note referred to is as follows:—

"The Local Government Board interpret `net annual value' to mean the assessable value for the purpose of a rate, and reckon property subject to different rating, as under s. 226 of this Act and s. 62 of the Towns Improvement Act, 1854, at one-fourth only of its annual value. In the English Act the words are `assessable value for two years,' which are construed to mean twice the assessable value at any given time."

The Listowel case subsequently came before the Supreme Court. The action of the plaintiffs was dismissed on the grounds that the proceedings could only have been brought before the court with the consent of the Attorney-General, which had not been sought.

Section 9 of the Bill is inserted with the object of resolving the doubts which exist as to the limitation on borrowing powers of local authorities for sanitary purposes. It validates the interpretation of Section 238 (2) of the Act of 1878 which my Department has adopted since it was set up. I am satisfied that this interpretation is the one which was intended by the Legislature when the 1878 Act was enacted. An examination of both the Irish and English codes relating to borrowing powers of local bodies bears out this statement. The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, repealed an earlier Act passed in 1874 relating to public health in Ireland. The Act of 1874 greatly enlarged the powers of sanitary authorities in this country in regard to public health, and also made provision for a contribution from State funds towards the salaries of sanitary officers employed by local bodies for the carrying of the Act into execution. The borrowing powers of local bodies for sanitary purposes were fixed by the Act of 1874 at twice the net annual value of the premises assessable within the district in respect of which the money was borrowed. This provision was in lieu of the provision contained in the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1871, which provided that the amount borrowed shall not at any time exceed in the whole the assessable value for one year of the premises assessable within the town in respect of which such money may be borrowed. The Act of 1874 therefore doubled the borrowing powers for sanitary purposes, and it will be noted that the expression "assessable value of the premises assessable within the town in respect of which such money may be borrowed" in the Act of 1871 was changed to "twice the net annual value of the premises assessable within the district in respect of which such money may be borrowed" in the Act of 1874.

The note in Vanston's Public Health, which I have already read, sets out that the limitation on borrowing by sanitary authorities in England was "the assessable value for two years." That limitation was embodied in the English Public Health Act of 1875, but that Act repealed the English Sanitary Law Amendment Act, 1874, which contained a similar provision in regard to borrowing by sanitary authorities in England. The words contained in the English Act of 1874 were "the asseasable value for two years of the premises assessable within the district in respect of which such money may be borrowed." We have therefore a clear comparative view of the statutory provisions regulating the borrowing powers of sanitary authorities in this country and in England in the year 1874 when the borrowing powers of sanitary authorities were doubled in both countries. The provisions relating to Ireland were set out in the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1874, and the provisions relating to England were set out in the Sanitary Law Amendment Act, 1874. Both Acts passed through the British Parliament at the same time. The Irish Act enacted that in lieu of "the assessable value for one year of the premises assessable within the town in respect of which such money may be borrowed" contained in the Act of 1871, the limitation on borrowing was to be "twice the net annual value of the premises assessable within the district in respect of which such money may be borrowed." The English Act of 1874 enacted that in lieu of "the assessable value for one year of the premises assessable within the district in respect of which such money may be borrowed" contained in the English Local Government Act, 1858, the limitation or borrowing was to be "the assessable value for two years of the premises assessable within the district in respect of which such money may be borrowed."

The contrast between the provisions relating to borrowing in these two Acts places beyond question the intention of the Legislature in the Irish Act that the borrowing limit was to be "twice the net annual value of the premises assessable within the district in respect of which such money may be borrowed." If assessable value were intended instead of net annual value, the statutory provision would have been in similar terms to that in the English Act of 1874. The provisions relating to borrowing contained in the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1874, were introduced by way of amendment in the Committee Stage of the Bill, and must, therefore, have received special consideration at that time.

The provisions of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1874, in regard to borrowing were re-enacted in Section 238 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, with slight amendments. I have examined a copy of the 1878 Bill as introduced into Parliament. It is prefaced by a printed memorandum signed by the Vice-President of the Local Government Board in 1878 appended to the Bill. This memorandum is of interest as showing the origin of the clauses in the Bill—whether taken from the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1874, or the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1871, or from the English Public Health Act, 1875. In dealing with the clauses relating to borrowing powers, the memorandum states:—

"Clauses 235 to 245. These clauses re-enact existing provisions with some modifications, viz., the power to re-borrow is new, also the last paragraph of clause 236 relating to borrowing for private improvement expenses or for expenses in regard to which a part only of the urban district is liable. Clause 241, authorising the appointment of receiver, the clauses 242 and 243, authorising the granting of rent charge for private improvement expenses, are also new."

Clause 236 of the Bill as introduced contained the regulations as to the exercise of borrowing powers. The marginal note to the clause is:—

"Regulations as to exercise of borrowing powers: Public Health (Ireland) Act, Section 45; Public Health (England) Act, Section 234."

The memorandum of the Vice-President referred to, read in conjunction with the reference in the marginal note to the origin of the clause, shows that paragraph (2) of Section 45 of the Irish Public Health Act of 1874, which contains the words "twice the net annual value of the premises assessable within the district," was retained, and that the only modification made was the substitution of "assessable value," being the words contained in sub-section (3) of Section 234 of the English Public Health Act of 1875, for "net annual value" in paragraph (3) of Section 45 of the Irish Act of 1874, which dealt with the holding of public inquiries by the central authority before giving sanction to borrowing by the sanitary authority.

There is one further section in the Bill to which I desire to refer specially. It is Section 11, which deals with the interpretation of Section 3 of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921. That Act was passed in the British Parliament to enable local authorities to obtain funds by way of temporary loans or overdrafts when it was almost impossible to collect revenue owing to the abnormal financial depression of that time. The Act also applied to this country, and under its provisions local bodies are empowered, with the sanction of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, to obtain overdrafts for the purpose of providing temporarily for any current expenses that may be incurred by them in the execution or performance of any of the powers and duties, including the payment of sums due by them to meet the expenses of other authorities. The Act was designed to meet the needs of local authorities who could not finance current expenses out of current revenue.

Part of the current expenses which local authorities have to meet annually consists of the amounts due in respect of annual instalments of loans raised by them, and lest any doubt should arise as to whether the repayment of an annual instalment of principal of a loan can be met out of funds temporarily borrowed by way of overdraft, I think it advisable to make the position quite clear in this Bill. I am anxious that borrowing for current expenses should not become a permanent feature of local administration, but for the present I am not disposed to make any alteration in the law. There has been a decided improvement latterly in the revenue position of local bodies, and I expect that in the next few years the position will have improved so much further that they will be in a position to finance the local services without recourse to overdrafts, except for a short period at the commencement of each financial year.

The remaining sections of the Bill relate to matters of general administration. Section 6 deals with borrowing for town halls; Section 7 removes the limitation on the rate in urban districts for the purposes of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, and fixes the limit on that rate in towns not urban districts at 2/6 in the £; Section 8 amends Section 203 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, regarding the publication of advertisements in connection with the proposed compulsory acquisition of land and other rights; and Section 10 amplifies the procedure for the extension of urban districts.

Professor O'Sullivan

The House, I think—and this was the intention of the Minister—was meant to be lulled to a sense of security by the opening statement of the Minister. Humanitarianism and piety breathed through the first couple of pages of the essay, but we might have suspected that there was something of a drastic nature—of a rather ruthless character—coming from the fact that the Minister was, more or less, seeking to shelter behind the general success of the housing policy. That was, strictly speaking, not at all relevant to the Bill that we have before us—to what I may call the penal provisions of the Bill. It was meant, as I say, to give a humanitarian flavour to the ruthless action that he is taking practically as regards one town. He spoke in general terms, but, even if he had not mentioned the particular township in question, it would have been quite apparent that he might have entitled this the Listowel Bill, with a few other matters thrown in to give it an air of respectability, a general character. It would be perhaps a mild way to describe the procedure as a grave impropriety in the circumstances; that is an exceedingly mild term to apply to the action taken by the Minister.

Perhaps I might be allowed to give a brief history of the case as it is before the courts. It is quite true this came before the High Court and there it was decided that, without the Attorney-General, the matter could be gone on with, and it was gone on with. A decision was given by the learned judge in the High Court partly against the plaintiffs, who impugned the authority of this particular body that is now being legalised or regularised by the Minister's action. He decided to a certain extent, a slight extent perhaps, also in favour of the plaintiffs. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not go into the merits of the case at all, and I think the Minister will fully agree with that. They decided the appeal on a purely technical point, namely, the point that the fiat of the Attorney-General was absent and that it was necessary. Therefore, the appeal was decided on that ground alone, not on the merits of the case. The case was described by the learned judge as of very considerable importance and of some difficulty. On that ground, on a purely technical point, the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The merits of the issue were not decided. The plaintiffs in this case then applied for, and got, the fiat of the Attorney-General so as to enable the action to be taken and so that the decision of the Supreme Court could be got.

It is in the middle of that particular procedure that the Government now proceed to cut across the whole thing and make it impossible for those people, representing a large number of the ratepayers in Listowel, to test the legality of the whole business. Surely the Minister will acknowledge that the propriety of action of that kind is gravely open to question? It is also stated by those who object to the present Bill that it was indicated in this House by the ex-Attorney-General that no retrospective legislation would be introduced. On these general grounds, and on the extraordinary line of action proposed by the Minister, I think the House ought carefully to weigh this Bill before it gives it a Second Reading. It practically decides this, that however illegally constituted a body may be that puts itself up to be a local authority, it shall be regarded as having been legally constituted and as being capable of legally exercising all the powers of a legally constituted body. When it seems to be taking action that the ratepayers do not approve of, and they decide to question the whole authority of that body, they are to be deprived by this Bill of the legal remedy that up to now was theirs.

If any Deputy will consider the sweeping character of the statements in Sections 2 and 3, he will realise that nothing of a more thoroughgoing nature in the way of retrospective legislation could have been put before the House. I am not going into the elaborate legal argument which the Minister has submitted as regards the later sections of the Bill. As a layman, his learned statement had the effect of making me suspicious. I wondered what all this elaborate legal argument coming from the Minister, not in a court of law, was for, if the Minister was really convinced that he was acting according to precedent, established practice or the view of the law up to the present. I can assure him, as a layman listening to him learnedly expounding the law, that I could not avoid believing that the Minister was quite convinced that the law and the practice and the procedure in local government was the opposite to what he was trying to prove. Elaborate proof of that kind is extraordinarily suspicious and would not have been necessary on the part of the Minister had he really a good case.

I am not speaking now for the Department of Local Government or the Commissioners; I am speaking on behalf of the unfortunate people of Listowel of all grades who have to foot this bill. As a result of certain actions in the past, departmentally and locally, a very serious state of affairs has arisen in Listowel. There are certain debts piled on the town which the towns people believe it will be impossible for them to meet. You are ignoring what was done, ignoring the fact that it has not been shown there was any illegality on the part of the ratepayers, yet you are now going to saddle them with all that debt. May I point out an excellent example that the Minister might follow? I remember a couple of years ago a Bill was introduced by the present Ministers, seeking to wipe out a whole lot of arrears in connection with the payment of which there was no doubt about the law. The present Ministers not merely introduced that Bill but took great credit for doing so. I refer to the arrears of land annuities.

Why cannot the Minister divest himself of his ministerial character and assume a more humane character? Why cannot the Minister try to realise the position of the people of Listowel and the debt they have to meet? Why can he not realise that, as a result of certain circumstances not to any extent the fault of the local people, you have a situation in Listowel that requires careful looking into and sympathetic treatment? The House, if it passes this Bill, is going to put an almost intolerable burden on the people there. Many of them will probably not be able to meet the burden that will be put on them suddenly. You have an exceptional situation.

You are dealing, not with deliberate breaches of the law, but with a number of people who thought the position was quite clear. The Minister may hold it was not quite clear. There was one place where it could be determined, and that was the Supreme Court. The Minister takes away that particular opportunity of having the matter settled. I am entitled to say there was no breach of the law on the part of those who object now to the payment of these debts. I think it is eminently a case for much more sympathetic treatment on the part of the Government than there is any evidence of in this Bill. It is an entirely exceptional case.

This is not a general Bill, but a particular Bill, and it is quite irrelevant to introduce fears, expressions of fear, that housing will be interfered with because the credit of local authorities will be undermined and that nobody would ever know whether he was on sound ground in lending money to local authorities. This is not the normal case. As the Minister knows perfectly well, it is entirely an abnormal case, and, being an abnormal case, it requires abnormal treatment. Unless that may for many people amount to a catastrophe is to be avoided, the Government ought to face the fact that they must come to the assistance of the people in Listowel, where for the past six years the most extraordinary—from the point of view of its composition and its election—body was operating, a body about whose powers and constitution the Minister had very grave doubts, judging by this Bill. If he had not those doubts, why the sweeping provisions, provisions so sweeping as almost to take one's breath away, that we have in this Bill?

It is not a general Bill and there is no danger of it becoming a precedent. If he is doubtful, if the Minister holds, for instance, that there is no doubt about the legality of the constitution of that body, I do not see any act of any local body, or of people presumed to constitute local bodies, that can be questioned. Here were people who were not managers and who were not commissioners. What were they? Can the Minister not, for the moment, divest himself of his ministerial cloak and forget the legal learning he has given to us to-day, and put himself in the place of the unfortunate ratepayer in Listowel? I think it is eminently a case for different treatment altogether. I do not intend to argue the grave doubts as to the utility of works and so on, but I think it is eminently a case in which the Government ought to come to the assistance of the people of Listowel, and not simply steam-roll a Bill like this through in order to come down on the ratepayers after a number of years. Undoubtedly, if you pass this Bill, you will inflict severe material loss on them, and you will leave the whole community suffering from a grave sense of injustice.

Mr. F. Lynch

In the period during which I have been a member of the Dáil, and that period covers the whole of the Dáil's existence, I have occasionally seen some rather extraordinary measures brought before the House, but never in my experience have I seen anything like this Bill brought before the Dáil, and I doubt very much if the statute books of any parliament in the world would show any precedent for a measure of this type. We are, at the moment, a Single Chamber Parliament, in which the majority which the Executive has can give effect to any type of measure, no matter how unjust towards any section of the community it may be. This, I say, is the type of measure that should not be brought before the Oireachtas when the Oireachtas consists of only one Chamber. I have no hesitation in saying that if we brought a measure of this type before the Oireachtas, nine or ten years ago, we would never have got it through the Seanad. It is the very type of legislation to the passing of which the Seanad would refuse to be a party, and the only hope of getting a measure of that type passed is by steamrolling it by means of the Party Whip, and the Party Whip was not exercisable in the Seanad.

Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this Bill are directed towards validating the invalid, towards making lawful retrospectively things which were unlawful. I think it would be well that the Dáil should understand quite clearly what lies behind this measure. The Minister purported to give the history of it and some reasons for bringing it forward. I intend to go more into detail. The Bill is brought forward to deal with the situation in Listowel, and it is directed towards preventing certain ratepayers in the town of Listowel from exercising their legal rights. As Deputy O'Sullivan has pointed out, certain ratepayers in their individual capacity challenged the validity of the council that was in existence from 1928 to 1934. The matter came before the High Court and a certain decision was given. The Minister for Local Government, during the course of the proceedings in the High Court, came before the judge there and asked to be added as a defendant, and in the same motion in which he asked to be added as defendant, he asked that the action be stayed and the plaintiffs put out of court because, forsooth, the Attorney-General was not a plaintiff. In other words, the Minister deliberately came in, in the middle of the action, for the purpose of stopping the action completely, and with a view to preventing the issues raised in the action from being determined by the court.

He did not succeed at that stage. The judge refused to grant his application so far as staying the action was concerned and he eventually gave a decision which in some respects was against the plaintiffs and in some respects was for them. At any rate, both the plaintiffs, the ratepayers of Listowel, and the defendants, the Minister, the Board of Public Works and the commissioner carrying out the duties of the Urban Council of Listowel, all appealed and the appeal went to the Supreme Court. As a preliminary point in the Supreme Court, the matter was raised which had been raised by the Minister in the High Court, that is, that the plaintiffs had no cause of action unless they acted merely as relators and that the Attorney-General should be the plaintiff. That contention was accepted by the Supreme Court and the plaintiffs were put out of court. The Supreme Court was, therefore, prevented from going into a consideration of the matters that were at issue, the matters at issue being the validity of that council which operated in Listowel for six years and the question as to whether or not the borrowing powers of the council had been exceeded.

That was the position and the plaintiffs at the time then took steps to rectify that technical error in the former proceedings. They applied for, and got, the fiat of the Attorney-General in order to start the proceedings again, so that they might have the opinion and the judgment of the Supreme Court on the questions raised. The Attorney-General granted his fiat and now the Minister comes in to prevent the Supreme Court giving that decision. It is perfectly obvious why. It is obvious he is satisfied that the plaintiffs could maintain their claim. If he were not, we would not have this Bill.

I should like to give the Dáil a slight bit of the history of this case. As most of the members of the Dáil are aware, the elections for these local authorities are held triennially. They are held say in the years 1925, 1928, 1931, 1934, and so on. In 1925, there was an election held in Listowel urban area and a properly constituted council was elected. During the triennial period, however, that is before the period had expired in 1928, nine out of the 12 members of the council had ceased to take any part in the work of the council. They had either resigned or had been disqualified for nonattendance. I should say that the statutory number of members of the Listowel Urban Council is 12. Nine out of the 12 had ceased to function, and the three remaining members continued to carry on the work of the council until the election in July, 1928. The statutory quorum for the council of 12 is three, and up to that time, the three remaining members acted perfectly legally. At any rate they were a quorum of the council, and for most matters—I will put it that way—they were enabled to function up to July, 1928. As a matter of absolute fact, there were some important duties which they could not legally perform. From the time that the nine went out of office, which I think was about 1926 or 1927, from the time the number of councillors fell below six, no legal rate was struck in the town of Listowel, because the law provides that a rate made by a council of that kind must be signed by not less than six members of the council. Apart from that, which is a very important matter, the three remaining members could have functioned as a quorum of the council up to July, 1928.

What happened in July, 1928? An election was declared in the ordinary way, a triennial election, and a strange thing occurred. There was not a single person nominated for the council. There was not a single nomination received by the returning officer. What did she do? The returning officer, I should say, is the town clerk, who is a lady. She then, acting in pursuance of some authority which she thought she had, declared the three former members of the council who had been carrying on the duties, though they had not been nominated, deemed to be re-elected. That action, of course, was, to say the least of it, extremely doubtful. I am not going to weary the House with legal arguments but there is a provision in statutory orders and in the law to deal with an occasion of that kind when it arises, but the way in which it was dealt with on that occasion is not the way to deal with it. At any rate, I should say that Section 2 of the Bill now shows that the Minister is satisfied that that action of the returning officer in 1928 was not legal and that, at least, she did not constitute a valid council thereby.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The High Court decided it was a valid council.

Mr. Lynch

You are afraid to allow that High Court decision to be tested in the Supreme Court. That is why you put that section in the Bill. If you hold that that was a right decision, why do you prevent the Supreme Court from finally deciding the matter, the Supreme Court which is the final legal authority in this country? You are afraid to let the matter be decided by that court. I may say that these members might have been a valid quorum up to July, 1928, but the position after July, 1928, was entirely different. What had you then? Even supposing that these three persons were validly re-elected, or deemed to be re-elected, as three members of the council, they did not form a council. The council, by law, must consist of 12 members. Surely these members did not form a quorum of the council? How can you have a quorum of a body that was never formed? Before you have a quorum you must, first of all, have the body of which it is to be the quorum. There was no urban council elected for Listowel by the election of July, 1928, so that the three persons deemed to be re-elected were not a quorum because the body did not exist. Be that as it may, the three persons who were elected proceeded to elect one of their members as chairman and to administer the affairs of Listowel as if they were a properly elected council. That was in July, 1928. Then began six years of, I suppose, the craziest administration that was ever inflicted on any unfortunate area. The three persons who were elected are, ordinarily, very decent men but I do not know what possessed them in this instance, unless it was that they felt overburdened by the responsibility of having to administer the whole affairs of the council. The administration fell on three shoulders instead of 12. At any rate, they seemed to imagine that they were administering a metropolis and that there need be no limit to the amount of expenditure on which they could embark, but the most amazing thing of it all is this:

There was perhaps some excuse for these members because of the fact that there were only three of them to shoulder the burden of 12 persons. They might well have lost their heads on that account but the extraordinary thing is that everybody with whom they came in contact seemed to become as crazy as they themselves. The Department of Local Government, engineers and everybody with whom they came in contact seemed to be carried away with them and sanctioned every bit of foolish expenditure and every wild-cat scheme on which they were prepared to embark. If they had halted for a moment to reflect things might have been different, but once they started, the infection seemed to spread to the Department of Local Government and everybody else until the Department became worse than themselves. There was a letter from the Department early on, a most extraordinary letter. It is very long, and I will read only one portion of it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

What is the date of the letter?

Mr. Lynch

It is dated 29th June, 1929, to the Clerk of the Urban District Council, Listowel, from the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Was not the Deputy Minister then?

Mr. Lynch

I was. I am not questioning that. I am giving the history in order to show what the Minister is doing now. The letter says:—

"In the interests of the public health of the town it is imperative that a proper water supply should be provided. Any renovation of the existing system would entail considerable expenditure, and would continue to involve a charge of £450 for pumping, and it seems to the Minister that it would in the end be more economical for the council to adopt the gravitation scheme now recommended by their engineer at a cost of approximately £9,600. This scheme will ensure an adequate and pure supply of water, and the annual charges thereunder will, to a large extent, be offset by the elimination of the charge of £450 a year for pumping already referred to."

I will come back to that in a minute. Listowel had at that time a water supply. As will be seen from the Minister's letter, it was a pumping scheme. It was, comparatively speaking, a fairly efficient water supply. It was pointed out by several engineers that, with a moderate expenditure and a very little care it could be made quite a competent scheme and quite an efficient one.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

What did the medical officer of health say about it?

Mr. Lynch

I will quote you that if you like. The report of the medical officer of health on the water supply from the pumping scheme was far better than the report on the Lacca scheme and far better than the report on the Bunglasha extension, in regard to which he told the Minister that apparently all his engineers thought was necessary for a water scheme was that it should be wet. The Minister was told that in 1934, or at least it appears in the minutes of a meeting in 1934. This is the report of the medical officer of health:—

"For the information of the council I beg to report that all the waste and sillage water effluent from the Toor creamery flows down the dyke to Meenanare and joins one of the streams proposed by the engineer as a supplementary water supply for Listowel. It seems to be a new idea in public health to utilise washings from a creamery for a public water supply, where such supply is to be used for human consumption. Apparently, the only requisite, from the engineering point of view, is that the water should be wet, ignoring the quality as to purity, etc."

As I have said, the pumping supply was a fairly efficient scheme, and could have been made quite efficient at comparatively little cost. But the triumvirate decided that this was not good enough for the Listowel metropolis, and they made up their minds that the town of Listowel would have a brand new water supply, which would be a kind of memorial to their régime. When the people of Listowel heard the first inkling of this scheme, well, first of all they could not believe it, because they heard that the new scheme was to come from a place called Lacca. Lacca is not very far from Listowel. Down the country, eight or nine miles mean nothing; everybody knows what is happening eight or nine miles away. Of course, the people of Listowel knew well that the people of Lacca had not enough water for themselves, not to mind supplying the town of Listowel. I need not say that they protested. Public meetings, memorials and so on were started to try to prevent the idiocy of embarking on this scheme. The people of Listowel had very good reason to be nervous about water schemes, because they were in this extraordinary position—and are up to this day—that they are paying for a water scheme started 40 years ago, which never supplied a drop of water to the town. There was a water scheme started at one time in the nineties; the turbines ran for one minute, and no water came into the town of Listowel because the water refused to flow uphill. The people of Listowel, therefore, have some reason to be doubtful about water supplies. When they heard about Lacca they thought it was too much of a joke to be paying for a second dud supply, and they protested very violently at the time. It was no use. The supply was forced on them, and the town of Listowel was saddled, as a start off, with a loan of £8,000.

There is a good deal of history behind this, and I should delay the House too long if I were to go into it. But there are some amazing things about this scheme, and not the least amazing is one thing which I came across here amongst the minutes of the council. They wrote to the Department of Local Government very early on, asking for their advice as to an engineer. This is a minute of the council, dated 11th September, 1928:—

"On the proposition of the chairman"—that is the chairman of the trio—"resolved that we ask the Department of Local Government and Public Health to recommend to this council an engineer for the purpose of examining Listowel Waterworks system and reporting as to the best means to be adopted towards improving the water supply to the town, and the probable cost."

Now we come to the minute of 12th November, 1928, which states:—

"Received letter from Department of Local Government and Public Health dated 17th October, No. S.64966/28, referring to the entry in the minutes of 17th September regarding the proposal for improving the water supply, stating that the Minister does not usually suggest the names of engineers, but suggested the names of Mr. P. McCarthy, Professor T. Purcell, Mr. E.M. Murphy, and Mr. B.M. Flynn. It was decided to employ Mr. Murphy to make an examination of the waterworks and furnish his report, and to ask him to inform the council what his charge will be for this work."

Apparently Mr. Murphy was duly notified of this. He was appointed on 12th November; the earliest he could have known of it was 13th November. But the minutes of 19th November state:—

"Mr. Murphy, engineer, Dublin, wrote stating that he would be in Listowel next week to complete his investigations in connection with the water supply."

That has always struck me as being very peculiar. He was appointed on 12th November, and at the meeting on 19th November there is a letter from Mr. Murphy stating that he would be in Listowel next week to complete his investigation of the water supply. Obviously he must have been doing the job long before he was appointed. That is the only construction one can read into that, and, as I say, it is a thing that struck me as being very peculiar indeed.

In spite of protests the scheme was sanctioned by the Local Government Department, and the triumvirate were allowed to borrow to the tune of £8,000 to embark on this scheme. All the protests that you could not get a supply of water from a place where there was no water, were no use, and protests that any water, that might be supplied from the place where it was, was unfit for human consumption, were absolutely no use; and on that there was sent to the Department at the time a bacteriological report obtained by the ratepayers who had caused a sample of the Lacca water to be taken in order that they might substantiate their opposition to the scheme. The report on the sample of water reads as follows:—

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 25 Nov 1936