Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Feb 1940

Vol. 78 No. 14

Public Business. - Unemployment Assistance (Amendment) Bill, 1939—Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

In order to remove doubts as to the true construction and meaning of Section 26 of the Principal Act, it is hereby enacted as follows, that is to say:—

(a) sub-section (1) of the said Section 26 is hereby amended, as from the passing of the Principal Act, by the deletion of the words "the amount of a rate of" where they occur in paragraph (a) of the said sub-section and also where they occur in paragraph (b) of the said sub-section;

(b) subject to the provisions of this section in relation to any particular county borough or the borough of Dun Laoghaire, the expression "rateable value" where it occurs in sub-section (1) of the said Section 26 means and always meant in relation to any urban area the aggregate amount of the valuations under the Valuation Acts.

Mr. Doyle

I move amendment No.1:—

In paragraph (b), page 2, line 35, to insert before the word "Subject" the words "from and after the passing of this Act".

The object of this amendment is to secure that the provisions of the Bill basing the contribution of local authorities upon the gross valuation instead of the net assessable valuation, upon which alone the local authorities can raise a rate, shall not operate retrospectively. If the Bill is to impose a greater liability upon the local authorities than that imposed by the original Act of 1933, this increase of liability should be confined to the future, and the local authorities should not be compelled to raise from the ratepayers in respect of past years the new increase which can only be made legal by the passing of the Bill.

Mr. Dockrell

I should like to add that it is very undesirable that legislation should be retrospective. The Minister, in speaking on this Bill previously, made great play with the fact that some of the corporations did not discover for a year or so what their rights were, and that they then appeared to have a double dose of original sin in exercising what they thought were their rights in the withholding of the payments except on effective valuation. I suggest to the Minister that a corporation which is advised that it is paying more than it should would be in a very unenviable position if it failed to act on that advice, where the advice had been properly given, and I submit that that advice apparently was properly given because the Bill says:

"In order to remove doubts as to the true meaning and construction of Section 26 of the Principal Act, it is hereby enacted as follows...."

If it is said that does not prove the case of the people who thought they need not pay, I leave it to the common sense of the House.

Another matter which seems rather peculiar is why the Minister suggested a rate on the gross valuation when he knew perfectly well that these bodies would have to raise it on the effective valuation. Was it done to make it appear all the smaller? He says, in other words: "Raise a ? rate on the gross valuation in order that it may look all the smaller," because what apparently these corporations will now have to do is to strike a rate of 2/- on the effective valuation in order to produce what a ? rate on the gross valuation would produce. I suggest that that is another anomaly and that the Minister ought to accept this amendment. He has now got it for all future time, as, of course, is his right, but I do not think it fair that when public bodies who are, or, at least, who believe themselves to be, the custodians of the ratepayers' interests, are advised that they have a certain legal remedy, the Minister should bring in a Bill and say: "This is the law for I made it so." I suggest he should accept these amendments.

Mr. Doyle

I overlooked amendment No.2. I should have moved it in conjunction with amendment No. 1.

An Ceann Comhairle

It will stand or fall with amendment No.1, to which it is complementary.

Mr. MacEntee

They are both complementary.

Mr. Hickey

I support the amendment for this reason, that the Cork Corporation did contribute on the gross valuation up to last year. It was only when we were trying to do what we could to keep the rates within 25/- in the £ that we got advice from other boards that we should not pay on the gross valuation.

Mr. MacEntee

You should not take bad advice.

Mr. Dockrell

It was apparently good advice.

Mr. Hickey

I think it was good advice, but, at any rate, it is not, in my view, a very nice thing to do to make legislation retrospective and I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment.

General Mulcahy

My remarks on this matter would apply more to the section rather than to the amendment, but I may as well make them on the amendment. I think the proposal in this Bill is as outrageous a proposal as ever came from the opposite benches, and that is saying a lot. We are amending now a Bill passed amongst the 1933 Acts. We have now got to 1940, and the people who will be affected by this Bill are the ratepayers for 1940-41. The Minister claims that a strict reading of the law of 1933 entitled him to get the moneys he now claims under this Bill. What has the Minister and his legal cohorts, and the courts, been doing for the last five years about this matter? Will the Minister say why a law passed by the Houses of Parliament here and according to his advice and, allegedly now, according to his then intention, meaning a particular thing, has been allowed to be flouted and ignored for the last five years?

If the Minister had a shred of legal justification for what he is attempting to suggest now, he would not have allowed the law to be flouted by anybody for the last four or five years, so that we take it that so far from removing doubts, this Bill is intended as a definite changing of the Act of 1933 and a going back on the powers given to him under that Act to take money from certain rating bodies. In 1941, and in respect of the ratepayers of 1940-41, he comes now not only to put an increased amount in the ordinary annual way in which this Bill is intended to put it, but to get back moneys extending over a number of years, and that out of the ratepayers of the present. In itself, it is as vicious and outrageous a proposal as ever came from the far benches, but, in the present circumstances, and from what we can read of the present general employment situation in the country arising out of the effect of Government policy, it is proceeding vigorously in the direction in which the Government have proceeded in the past, that is, to take additional moneys out of the pockets of ratepayers and taxpayers and to spend them themselves to the detriment of the general employment in the country.

Sufficient should be known, and is known from the circumstances of the present time, to suggest to Ministers that they ought to back pedal on a policy of this kind rather than proceed in the direction in which they are going. Figures have been published showing the general trend of employment in the year 1939, and when related to the figures already published for 1938 and 1937 it is definitely manifest that the financial policy of the present Government has completely wiped out the annual average increment in employment throughout the country.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has departed far from either the section or the amendment.

General Mulcahy

I ask you to agree with me—

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair does not agree to or disagree to any speeches in this House, provided they are in order.

General Mulcahy

I submit that it is proper to argue what I am going to argue. I am going to discuss the increase in unemployment in the City of Dublin in the last three years.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would not be in order. It might possibly have been in order on Second Reading.

General Mulcahy

Might I give the headings under which my argument would run if I were allowed to put it?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not submit his argument in that form either.

General Mulcahy

Then I can only accept your ruling when I come up against your ruling. But I say that for the last six or seven years the Government have taken out of the pockets of the ratepayers and taxpayers more and more additional sums of money to be spent by the Government instead of being allowed to remain with the people to be spent by themselves. The result has been that, in spite of huge sums of money, totalling about £9,000,000 per year in extra taxation, including the land annuities, apart from borrowed money, spent by the Government, during the last few years, not only is the annual additional employment in the country reduced to 75 per cent. of what it was——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must come down to the section or resume his seat.

General Mulcahy

My point is that if the section is passed—I am dealing with the section as well as the amendment—it is going to take out of the pockets of the Dublin people substantial sums of money that will give less employment than if they were left in the hands of the Dublin people to be spent by them and that the situation in the city is crying out for the extension of employment. If this money gets into the hands of the Government there will be less employment given with the result that there will be additional burdens falling on the ratepayers of the City of Dublin owing to the necessity for giving home assistance, and there will be less employment in the City of Dublin. In the City of Dublin in January there were 1,900 persons more in receipt of unemployment assistance than there were a year ago; 4,300 more than there were two years ago; and 5,500 more than there were three years ago.

The Minister may argue that his case for taking money out of the pockets of the ratepayers is that it is to pay for additional unemployment assistance. I say that the additional unemployment is a result of Government policy and not the policy of the Dublin Corporation. Part of the Government policy was to take large sums of money out of the pockets of the ratepayers and taxpayers and that is what is bringing about unemployment in the City of Dublin. If this Bill is applied retrospectively in the City of Dublin and the money is to be used by the Government rather than by anybody else, it is going to give less employment here, which will mean that there will be more demands on the pockets of the ratepayers for unemployment assistance. We are entering on a dirtier and more vicious circle. If the Minister has no better proposal to make than to proceed more viciously in this matter of financial policy than in the past, and if we are not to have additional unemployment, which will call for more money being taken out of the pockets of the people, then the Minister should not only drop the retrospective aspect of this section, but he should drop the whole idea itself. The whole idea is simply carrying on a policy that has brought about the very situation that they are attempting now to piece and patch, and will not be able to piece or patch or do anything with until they change their financial policy.

Mr. Corish

I support the amendment because I disagree entirely with retrospective legislation of this kind. This is, to my mind, a very bad year for a Government to try to collect moneys retrospectively from local councils. It is known to the Minister, and I am sure it is known to the whole Executive Council, that at the moment public bodies are very hard pressed in consequence of the fact that certain materials which they require have been increased in price, and that they will be put to the pin of their collar this year to prevent themselves from having to increase the rates to a very large extent. If the Minister insists on this Bill coming into force so far as the retrospective provisions are concerned, it will mean an increase of rates for a good many local authorities in this country. As I said in my Second Reading speech, the Minister for Local Government has circularised local authorities asking for economies. If this thing is persisted in it will not be easy for the local councils concerned to practise economy.

To my mind, the Government themselves are responsible for the state of affairs which now exists in connection with this matter. So far as I have been able to ascertain, some local authorities paid from the very beginning only on the effective valuation inside of their jurisdiction. There was a doubt from the beginning as to what should be paid by the local authorities to the Exchequer in connection with unemployment assistance. As I said in my Second Reading speech, I remember distinctly asking the then Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass) whether it was on the effective or the gross valuation that these moneys should be paid and he said that, in his opinion, it was on the gross valuation. That was only his opinion. I submit that, when it became apparent to the Minister and his Department in the last five or six years that certain local authorities were only paying on the effective valuation, action should have been taken at that time. I cannot find any data to show that any action was taken against any particular local authority and those who were paying on the gross valuation, when they became aware that others were only paying on the effective valuation, were entitled to assume that it was only on the effective valuation that these moneys were to be paid. If the Minister had taken action at that particular time to correct something which he considered to be wrong, there might not be any necessity for this retrospective legislation at all. There must be some doubt, even in the Minister's mind, that he has not power to collect this money, for if the "gross valuation" was in his legislation as clear as he would have us believe it is, he would have had power to collect this money without having recourse to the introduction of a second Bill. It certainly causes us that much doubt about it. If the Minister had the strength of the law at his back he would not consider it necessary to bring in here another Bill in order to clarify the situation. I suggest to the Minister that this is a reasonable amendment, that retrospective legislation is bad at any time, but that the position is worse when it involves payments by local authorities who at the moment are at their wits' ends to keep down the rates and carry out the instructions received from the Local Government Department. This is the time to keep down the rates and it is not the time for the Minister to put into force retrospective clauses of this kind. The Ministry themselves are as much to blame as, if not more to blame, than any of the local authorities. The local authorities were doing their best in the interests of the ratepayers they represent in each of their areas. The Minister made a statement here that certain local authorities had collected the moneys and that they did not hand these moneys to the Exchequer. I do not think that is correct.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy may take it as correct so far as the Dublin Corporation is concerned.

General Mulcahy

How many years ago?

Mr. MacEntee

Last year.

Mr. Corish

I do not know about the Dublin Corporation, but I stated here a week ago that to my mind the proper thing for the Minister to have done would be to say to the Dublin Corporation and other authorities that they should increase the rate by 1d. or 2d. in the £ to enable them to collect the moneys required by the Minister. Take a local authority like the Wexford Corporation. In order to get a 9d. rate it would be necessary for that corporation to levy an 11d. rate. I would say that is the wrong kind of way to apply the law. In consequence of Government legislation the local authority is not permitted to collect on the gross valuation. There are certain remissions in the rates brought about by new houses and things of that kind. Though the councils are not permitted to collect on the gross valuation, yet they must make up the gross valuation. That is an unfair imposition, and it is certainly going to be hard on the local authorities who are doing their best to keep the rates on a level which they consider the people are able to pay. That is my submission.

Mr. MacEntee

The issue which is now raised by these amendments was thrashed out by the House in 1933. The House then decided the matter in a way that left no room for ambiguity or dispute. The view of the Oireachtas was left beyond any question or doubt. Deputy Dockrell has said that the main purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the poundage which is fixed in order to provide the corporation's contribution to the Employment Assistance Act will be levied on effective valuation. Deputy Corish has admitted that he remembers asking the Minister in 1933 whether this poundage was going to be levied on the effective or gross valuation. The Deputy did more. The Deputy then took up an attitude on this matter with which his attitude here to-day is perfectly consistent. When the original Bill was going through the House he put down an amendment to insert before the word "rateable" the word "effective". That amendment was withdrawn by the Deputy on the Committee Stage of the Bill in order to allow the Minister and the House to consider the case fully. That amendment was introduced on the Report Stage of the Bill and it was then defeated by a vote of the House. The matter was again raised in the Seanad. It was raised on three occasions during the progress of the Bill through the Seanad, and it was finally defeated by the Seanad. That amendment, as I say, was defeated on the Final Stages of the Bill.

What are we to deduce from that, except this: That the Oireachtas in settling the financial structure of the Employment Assistance Acts had decided that so far as words could be written into the Statute to express the clear intention of the Oireachtas, then the plain and unmistakable interpretation to be put upon these words was that the poundage to be struck for the purpose of these Acts was to be levied upon and applicable to the gross valuation of the communities concerned. That was the intention of the Oireachtas, and all we are asking the House to do to-day is, not to make legislation retrospective in effect, but to confirm beyond the possibility of doubt the decision which the House took upon this matter in 1933. This is not a debating society, and the House cannot construct its business as if it were—doing one thing to-day and reversing it tomorrow—and it does not matter, as an argument in this issue, what hardships are to be imposed upon a corporate body by reason of the foolish action it took. This House is not entitled to stultify itself by going back on the decision of 1933. It is quite clear that the House itself decided that this poundage was to be levied on the gross valuation as defined in the Valuation Acts, and that upon the net issue being raised as to whether it was to be levied on the effective valuation or not, it was decided that the contribution to be made by the municipalities to the Exchequer was not to be diminished by reason of the fact that the effective valuation might be less than the gross valuation. That is the basis upon which I am going to ask the House to stand to-day —that we are maintaining the attitude we took up in 1933 and that if people have failed to honour their obligations under the Principal Act—that if they have chosen to put another interpretation upon the Statute than that which the House clearly intended by the decisions which it took upon the amendment by Deputy Corish, and later on upon Senator Staines' amendment in the Seanad, that we are not going to condone the attitude of the local authorities who have failed to meet their obligations to the public——

Mr. Corish

Even though they believed they were acting rightly?

Mr. MacEntee

The records of this House are there for any member of the corporation who happened to be a member of this House; they are there to be consulted. I think that, so far as there may be on some members a joint obligation in this matter to the local authority or to the Legislature of this country, the obligation of those members to the Legislature and the public Exchequer comes first. When this matter was first mooted they should have pointed out that those who chose to levy the citizens upon the basis of the Act passed by the Oireachtas in 1933 would be found to be acting validly in law. At the same time, if having levied the citizens upon that basis, they refused to pay their contributions upon the same plane and on the same basis, if they withheld from the State and the public Exchequer the moneys that were collected on the supposition that the action which we took in 1933 would be found to stand good in law. They were condoning injustice. That is the position. I say that those who had a dual obligation in this matter ought to have put their obligation to the country first. We cannot operate in this matter as if it were a sort of private difference between one individual and another. There are standards which ought to prevail in this country and the municipal council of the capital city ought to set a high standard. It ought to have been consistent in this matter. If it thought the interpretation which it now seeks to put upon Section 26 of the original Act of 1933 was the correct one, then it ought not to have gone and mulcted the citizens in an additional 2d. or 3d. in the rates, which it did.

Mr. Doyle

They did no such thing.

Mr. MacEntee

The corporation of the city struck a rate in 1938-9, of 1/10 in the £ for the purpose of contributing a sum to the Unemployment Assistance Fund which was assessed at the rate of ? in the £ upon the gross valuation. They did not hand over to us the proceeds of that levy. On the contrary, instead of handing that money over, they withheld from the Exchequer no less a sum than £53,000, covering the amounts which, they alleged, had been wrongfully paid in 1934-5, 1935-6, 1936-7, 1937-8, and 1938-9, They ought to have been honest in this matter. There are standards which Dublin Corporation and those who are members both of Dublin Corporation and of this House ought to be careful to preserve in this country—that every man should meet his obligations under the law. Let them remember the Parable of the Unjust Steward. If they are going to arrogate to themselves supposititious rights under an Act of the Oireachtas, they ought to concede to their citizens the same rights.

Mr. Doyle

They did.

Mr. MacEntee

They did nothing of the sort. They have been guilty of the most contemptible inconsistency—I think this ought to be said because there are standards which will have to be set up and maintained in this country, no matter how unpopular it may be for a Deputy who sits for a constituency in Dublin to come in here and defend a measure which is probably going to mean an increase of a 1d. or 2d. in the £ on the rates. That has to be done. If it is not done and if it is not defended, then what is going to be the position? Every man will have the right to proceed upon two conflicting bases. When he is collecting a levy from the citizens, he will go on one interpretation and, when he comes to discharge his obligations, he will go on a diametrically opposite interpretation. That cannot be allowed.

Mr. Belton

We found you out in the meantime.

Mr. Hickey

What the Minister says does not apply all round.

Mr. MacEntee

It does apply all round.

Mr. Hickey

It did not apply.

Mr. MacEntee

I am sorry that the Corporation of Cork followed the same tactics.

Mr. Hickey

No. I want to correct that.

Mr. MacEntee

They levied a rate on the assumption that they would have to pay on the gross valuation and, then, they proceeded to pay only upon the net valuation.

Mr. Hickey

We did not. We simply struck a rate of 1/8 on the gross valuation and we were paying it on the gross valuation.

Mr. MacEntee

I am glad that the Deputy's municipality was not in exactly the same position as the Corporation of Dublin. Up to the year 1938-9, Cork, like Dublin, paid on the gross valuation, but, after 1938-9, they decided, in effect, that the whole thing might be wiped out, that nobody would have the determination to stand up to them, and that they would simply keep in their own pockets the money they had collected from the citizens upon the plea and excuse that the Government was demanding it from them.

Mr. Hickey

I want to correct that statement. We gave the money to the Minister every year we collected it.

Mr. Doyle

The Minister has a bad way of making a case.

Mr. MacEntee

That being the position, there is only one thing for the borough and county boroughs affected by the Bill to do and that is to meet their obligations in the measure that the Oireachtas intended them to be met and to look pleasant about it. Do not let themselves be put in the ridiculous position of having tried a smart trick and thinking that they are going to get away with it at the expense of the rest of the community. I assure you that they are not going to get away with it, because I do not believe they have any merits in the matter at all.

Mr. Belton

Why this Bill?

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Corish has told us that the Minister for Local Government has been enjoining on the local authorities the need for the severest economy in these trying times. Even if the Minister for Local Government had not done that, we all know that citizens are finding it hard enough to pay their way. We, on behalf of the Oireachtas, put an interpretation upon this Act. As I have shown, amendments were put down in this House and the other House to enable the Act to be interpreted as Dublin Corporation at the last moment interpreted it. These amendments were defeated. Notwithstanding that, Dublin Corporation still persists in its perverse attitude——

Mr. Doyle

It has been proved right.

General Mulcahy

Why not leave the law as it is?

Mr. MacEntee

——in its perverse attitude in regard to its obligations to the Exchequer and to the general body of the taxpayers about whom Deputy Mulcahy a little while ago was so much concerned. What are we to do? We have got either to collect this money according to our interpretation of the statute and the evidence I have submitted to the House shows that our interpretation is the correct one——

General Mulcahy

Why the Bill, then?

Mr. MacEntee

Or we have to forego it. We cannot forego it. We cannot allow the Corporation of the City of Dublin, whose citizens are paid unemployment assistance at much higher rates than are being paid anywhere else in the country outside the four county boroughs and the borough of Dún Laoghaire—we cannot allow Dublin Corporation whose citizens are being paid unemployment assistance at these enhanced rates and which does not contribute more than three-fourths of the amount required to make up the difference between these enhanced rates and those prevailing generally throughout the country, we cannot allow the Corporation of the wealthy City of Dublin to pass this sum of £53,000 on to the backs of the rural community because that is what would result if we did not try to collect this money. Suppose we make up our minds to collect this sum, what can we do? Dublin Corporation says that there is a doubt as to how the statute is to be interpreted.

Mr. Belton

So does the Minister.

Mr. MacEntee

We have two ways of dealing with that doubt. We can either go to law with the Dublin Corporation or we can settle it as we are settling it now. Deputies should not forget that it is we, the Oireachtas, and not the Government, who make the law. The only privilege that the Government has in a matter of this sort is the privilege of carefully considering it and coming to the Oireachtas and taking upon itself the responsibility of advising the Oireachtas as to what is the best thing to be done. We have come to the Oireachtas and we have said this: The Minister for Local Government and Public Health, according to Deputy Corish, has enjoined upon the local authorities the necessity for practising the most parsimonious economy in these rigorous times; we have two choices in the matter—either to settle this matter, as I said on the Second Stage of the Bill, by legislation, which will save a great deal of money, or to settle it by litigation, which is going to cost a great deal of money; and whether we were to succeed or to lose such litigation the result is going to be the same, because the financial basis of these Acts was definitely laid down by the Oireachtas, and it does not matter what decision may be given in regard to the law, the Oireachtas, in discharge of its general duties to the citizens, and in order to fulfil its obligation to see that equal justice is meted out, will have to come here and change and modify the law so that the status quo ante will be restored.

That is going to be the final situation, no matter what litigation may be undertaken. What we have got to consider now is whether we are going to allow ourselves to be involved in this useless litigation, wasting the money of the taxpayers in doing so— because, as you all know, litigation costs money, and this sort of suit might cost a great deal of money to one of the interested parties—whether, as I say, we are going to waste not only the money of the general taxpayers in this fruitless litigation, but whether also we are going to give the corporations of the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, and the borough of Dun Laoghaire, the excuse and opportunity to waste the ratepayers' money in an equally futile way.

Mr. Hickey

There is nobody anticipating that.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy may be quite certain that we have got to get this money either by legislation or by litigation. If we proceed by way of litigation, what are we going to do? We are going to disregard the wise-admonishment of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that we should practice economy in these very hard times. Supposing we went to law in this matter and that we were to win, what would be the result from the point of view of the Dublin Corporation?

Mr. Doyle

They would have to pay.

Mr. MacEntee

They would have to pay, but not merely would they have to pay the £53,000——

Mr. Doyle

But this is confiscation on your part now.

Mr. MacEntee

——not only would they have to pay the £53,000, but they would also have to pay the very fat fees which the lawyers on both sides would draw as a result of that litigation. What I have said in regard to the Corporation of Dublin would apply equally to the Corporations of Cork, Limerick and Waterford, and to the County Borough of Dun Laognaire, and so, as a result of all this trouble, turmoil and strife, the only people who, in the end, would benefit would be the lawyers. It would therefore appear that, in this matter, the members of the Opposition and of the Labour Party, who seem to be in favour of this litigation, happen to be the lawyers' friends. Well, thanks be to God, we are standing for the interests of the taxpayer, and we do not think it either necessary or desirable to squander money in that way. Accordingly, Sir, we are opposing these amendments.

General Mulcahy

The Minister, Sir, in talking with great respect of Parliament and its position of responsibility and respect in the country, has told us in effect that, as long as he has a majority behind him, we might as well shut up. If there is an order from the Ministry of Local Government and Public Health to the effect that economies have to be practised, then all outside the Government majority in this House may shut up and save the light and the printing and all the other little accessories that can be saved if Parliament will only shut up and allow a Government majority to deal with its interpretation of the law.

Mr. Corish

The Minister mentioned an amendment that I put in, in connection with the 1933 Bill. As far as I can see, the effect of what I tried to do was to make the position clear and remove any doubt as to whether the rate would be on the effective valuation or the gross valuation. To my mind, however, the matter was still left doubtful and it did not appear to me that it was made clear as to whether or not the rate would be on the effective valuation.

Mr. Hickey

Might I be permitted to ask the Minister whether it is fair that, in the City of Cork, where there is a substantial remission, the rates should go on the gross valuation?

Mr. MacEntee

All I know is that it costs £57,000 per annum to pay the residents of Cork, who may be in receipt of unemployment assistance, unemployment assistance at the rates which prevail, and that the corporation only contributes £19,000 per annum for that. I am warning representatives of the urban areas, and particularly the larger urban areas, that if this matter is raised, the issue is going to be whether there should not be uniform rates paid by the Exchequer and let the local authorities provide any difference there may be.

General Mulcahy

And the Minister is warning everybody that he is going to make it worse, not only for the ratepayers, but for the taxpayers throughout the country, by the policies he is pursuing, and that he is not going to listen to any argument put up either with regard to the condition of the people or sound financial policy.

Mr. Hickey

And it must be remembered that you do not give any substantial grants or contribute substantially. I do not like the tone of the Minister's speech.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided:—Tá, 33; Níl, 53.

Tá

• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George C.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Hickey, James.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• Lynch, Finian.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Cole, John J.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Corish, Richard.
• Curran, Richard.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Dillon, James M.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Timothy J.
• Nally, Martin.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donovan, Timothy J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Sullivan, John.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reynolds, Mary.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Carty, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kelly, James P.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Francis.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McDevitt, Henry A.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Mullen, Thomas.
• Munnelly, John.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Brigid M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Ward, Conn.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett: Níl: Deputies Smith and Kennedy.

Amendment declared lost.

Question put: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 31.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Carty, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Brigid M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kelly, James P.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Loughman, Francis.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McDevitt, Henry A.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Mullen, Thomas.
• Munnelly, John.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Ward, Conn.

Níl

• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George C.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
• Cole, John J.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Corish, Richard.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John A.
• Curran, Richard.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Hickey, James.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• Lynch, Finian.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Timothy J.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Donovan, Timothy J.
• Redmond, Bridget M.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

Section 2 ordered accordingly to stand part.

Section 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Mr. Doyle

I move:—

To add at the end of sub-section (3) the words "provided always that in giving such direction the Minister shall provide for such payment by equal instalments spread over not less than ten years".

Section 4 provides for payment by the local authorities to the Minister of what the marginal note describes as "deficiencies in payments for past years". Sub-section (3) gives him power to direct that the payment shall be made in one or more instalments. The object of the amendment is to spread the payment over ten years in order to avoid imposing a heavy burden on the ratepayers by requiring the whole amount to be paid off in one sum or in large instalments covering a short period.

Mr. Dockrell

I do not wish to make the same speech that I made on the former amendments, yet some of the Minister's remarks call for some reply. He mentioned the "unjust steward"; I think he should not really have referred to that gentleman, as he had trouble with an amending Bill. It seems to me that that is the position the Minister is in.

There is another matter with which the Minister made great play: he said that this House had decided certain things. Apparently, they did not get into the Act. I do not know whether my recollection is as strong as the Minister's about that period when it was going through, but I would like to refer again to Section 2—"in order to remove doubts as to the true construction and meaning of Section 26." That really makes the whole of our case. There is, undoubtedly, a flaw in the Act. To repeat what I said before, when the townships and other corporations found that they need not pay this money, they did not strike a rate for it; and the fact that they had collected money one year and returned it to the ratepayers the next year does not improve the Minister's argument.

Mr. MacEntee

They have not returned it.

Mr. Dockrell

They cannot do it now. I should like to ask the Minister, if that rate had not been struck what would have happened to them? Would the Minister have let them off? It seems that the Minister is engaged in special pleading. They would not have got out of this, no matter what they did. I would suggest that for some years past the Minister thought that these sums were not so serious, that they really could be forgotten about; then, as the unemployment contributions increased, the Minister and the Government thought they were serious. That, I suppose, is a bad omen of what we may have to face. I ask the Minister to exercise his clemency and to consider the position of the ratepayers who will have to fool the Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not accepting these amendments. If public authorities are in any special difficulty in matters of this sort, it will be dealt with reasonably, but, so far as I can see, in regard to the interests for whom Deputy Dockrell speaks, the position is a very simple one, a rate was struck, levied, collected——

Mr. Doyle

And remitted.

Mr. MacEntee

——in the year 1938-39, which would have provided the wherewithal to enable the corporation to meet its obligations to the Exchequer. The corporation, having collected the rate, did not meet its obligations to the Exchequer; not only that, it withheld from the Government money collected in 1934-35, 1935-36, 1936-37, and 1937-38. The corporation has the money and, so far as I am concerned, the best thing is for the corporation to pay up and look pleasant.

Mr. Belton

Was not the corporation within its right in withholding the money?

Mr. MacEntee

We say it was not.

Mr. Belton

Then, what is the need for this Bill?

Mr. MacEntee

It is just to impress that fact on the corporation.

Mr. Belton

To impress that fact! So the Government is taking up the position we heard of in our young days, when Coercion Acts were being passed in the House of Commons and the British Government was manufacturing crime. The Government is now going to manufacture crime, and what was not a crime yesterday is going to be made a crime, if the Government does not like it. If the Dublin Corporation misinterpreted the Act for a few years and paid over the money wrongly, and then discovered, after having levied in 1938-39 the rate at 1/10 in the £, that a mistake had been made, were they not only within their rights, but was not the City Manager in duty bound, in carrying out his office, to withhold that money? The proof that they are right is this Bill.

The Minister, having put an Act through this House, was not able to interpret that Act. An independent lawyer came along and read a meaning into that Act which the Minister has accepted; he has accepted it by virtue of the fact that he has had to introduce a Bill to circumvent that legal opinion, or, in other words, to put on the Act the interpretation which he said should have been put on the Act six or seven years ago. Because of the Government's bungling—I suppose they had not grown up; they had not got full powers of speech; they were not able to express in words what they meant— in this year of stress the ratepayers of Dublin will be called upon to pay not only the full amount for 1939-40, but they will have to pay for the discrepancies over the last six or seven years. I wonder how the ratepayers of Dublin will be able to face that when this year of stress is manifesting itself in another way, and the ratepayers of Dublin are confronted with a strike to-morrow or with paying £60,000 to meet another demand. I wonder how the ratepayers will be able to do that, when their home assistance contribution is more than it ever was. When the original Bill was being put through here the principal dope used in putting it over was that the extra amount which would be paid in unemployment assistance by the ratepayers of Dublin would be saved to them in home assistance. The chairman of the Dublin Board of Assistance is here, and he has explained how that has gone up. The whole thing is an indictment of the Government's policy and administration, and its inability even to say what it means.

Mr. Cosgrave

If what the Minister says is a fact—and it is a question of fact—then there is no case whatever for this amendment. But it is contended that it is not a fact, that the corporation is not getting this money, and in a situation such as we are facing at the moment there is a more than usual claim for consideration on the part of the corporation. I would not go so far as to recommend spreading this in equal instalments over a period of ten years. It is too long a period. But I strongly urge that it should be spread over a period of three years. Three years of very exceptional difficulties, perhaps, are facing us at the moment, and there is a considerable sum of money involved here. £67,000 is a very considerable sum; it is over 9d. in the £. The Minister should consult his colleague in the Ministry who has had some experience of corporation business. It is the bounden duty of the legal advisers to the corporation to ensure that every demand which is put before the corporation is in accordance with law. In this particular case my information is that the corporation, having had that report from the law agent, went further and got other legal opinion on it. The legal opinion was to the effect that the corporation was right in doing what it has done. We have allowed a couple of years to elapse in the meantime, and now we suddenly come down upon them for a sum of £67,000. It is not reasonable. Surely, at a time when the demand for home assistance is up, and the demand in respect of mental hospitals is up, to ask them for this sum is unreasonable. I think there is a manifest case for spreading it over three years.

Mr. Hickey

I should like to tell the Minister that the Cork Corporation postponed the striking of a rate until next Tuesday evening with a view to getting the Minister to spread this amount over three years. I would not support any suggestion that it be extended over eight years or even over five years, but the Cork Corporation decided that the striking of the rate should be postponed with a view to getting the Minister to agree to spreading the amount over a period of three years. I think there is no reason for all the things the Minister has said about something shady on the part of the different corporations. When we are faced with 26/- in the £, it is no time to be asked for a payment of £6,000. All the corporation ask is that this payment should be spread over a period of three years, and I do not see any difficulty in the Minister accepting that proposition.

Mr. MacEntee

The Leader of the Opposition has put this matter on a very reasonable basis. He has put it on a rather different basis to that on which it has been put hitherto during the course of this debate. I should certainly like to defer to his views, but after all it does not rest with me. It rests finally with the Minister for Finance. By reason of the fact that the ordinary contributions, or the contributions which the Exchequer anticipated, were not paid to the Unemployment Assistance Fund in the ordinary course, the Exchequer has had to make good the amount at the expense of the general taxpayer. When the Budget for the year was before the House, I pointed out that we took a very strong view in regard to this matter, and that in due course a Bill would be brought in to recover for the Exchequer the moneys which we believed were wrongfully withheld. A question was put to me as to whether they were, in fact, wrongfully withheld. Deputy Cosgrave has said that it is a question of fact. I will put the facts as I know them before the Deputy. Under the Act of 1933, the contributions in question were to be the equivalent of the proceeds of poundage levied upon the rateable value, as set out in the relevant section. I have already pointed out in the discussion on Section 2 of this Bill that when the Principal Act was before the House, an amendment was put down which would have limited the incidence of that levy to the effective valuation of the municipalities concerned. That amendment was defeated here in the Dáil, and an amendment in even more precise terms, but with a similar effect, was defeated in the Seanad. In consequence of that, I think it must be generally accepted that the Oireachtas intended that the provisions of the Principal Act should be interpreted as they have been interpreted by the Government from the start, and as they were interpreted up to some time in the year 1938-39 by the principal municipalities concerned, including the Corporation of the City of Dublin.

What are the facts in regard to Dublin? As I have pointed out, the original Act prescribed that a poundage at the rate of ? in the £ upon the gross valuation should be levied, and that the proceeds of that rate should be paid into the Unemployment Assistance Fund. That was the position until the year 1938. In the year 1938 the contribution to be paid by the Dublin Corporation was increased from ? in the £ upon the gross valuation to ? in the £ upon the gross valuation. That, at any rate, was what we thought the Acts of the Oireachtas prescribed, and my attitude in regard to the whole of this matter is that we have no reason to think we were wrong.

In the earlier years, at any rate, the Dublin Corporation's view coincided with ours. Though the Act prescribed ? in the £ on the effective valuation, nevertheless, the corporation were aware of the fact, and it was mentioned here in the course of the debates upon the Principal Act, that in order to make good that contribution, the poundage to be levied upon the effective valuation would be higher than ?. In the year 1934-35 the demand note issued by the corporation specified ? for unemployment assistance. That was the position in 1935-36. In 1936-37 the rate actually levied was reduced from 1/8 to 1/7½. In 1937-38 it was, similarly, 1/7¾, and in the year 1938-39, when the corporation's contribution was increased by reason of the fact that the rate at which unemployment assistance became payable had been increased by the Amending Act of 1938-39, the corporation levied its rate at 1/10 in the £ on the effective valuation. Not merely did the corporation levy that rate, but it collected the sum from the citizens. In the years 1934-35, 1935-36, 1936-37 and 1937-38, it not merely collected these moneys at the rates which I have mentioned, but it paid them over to the Exchequer. What happened in 1938-39? It imposed a rate of 1/10, and in so far as that rate could be made effective, it collected that rate of 1/10 from those who could pay or were bound to pay, but when it came to meeting its obligations to the Exchequer it failed to pay over that 1/10. Not merely did it withhold from the Exchequer the difference between what it collected and what it might have paid if its obligations were limited to ? in the £ on the effective valuation, but it withheld from the Exchequer the amounts which it alleged it had paid in excess over the preceding four years.

The argument has been used here in the course of this debate, that the corporation was bound to act upon the advice which it received from its legal adviser, but when I was speaking on the Second Stage of this Bill I put this question to those who were speaking for the Dublin Corporation and I asked them whether their legal adviser had advised them that whatever might be the position in regard to the year 1938-39, that whether they were entitled or not to interpret the Act as limiting the contribution to a levy of ? in the £ upon the effective valuation, that whatever might be the position in regard to that net issue, whether their adviser had gone further and had advised them that they were entitled to withhold from the Exchequer the sums which they held had been paid in excess in respect of the preceding four years? That is a very important issue because the Exchequer, so far as the Corporation of Dublin was concerned, had to go short of £53,000 in the year 1938-39. If it is true that in respect of the contributions to be paid in the year 1938-39 there was some element of doubt as to whether £14,000 more or less should be paid over, nevertheless I am given to understand that the corporation was not entitled to go back on the preceding four years, and that if they withheld moneys in respect of each of those years, or if they withheld a sum of perhaps £39,000 in respect of the contributions of the preceding four years, they were not entitled to do so and acted without being advised that they were legally entitled to do so. In that event-though the Leader of the Opposition has put this matter upon quite a different plane from what has been argued here before-I do not think in regard to this £39,000 the Exchequer has any choice except to insist that the corporation will meet its obligations.

That is a very important matter because, as I have said already, I think the corporation in these matters ought to set a very high standard. If the corporation is not going to meet its obligations, and if it acts in a matter of this sort without being fortified by legal advice, it has no grounds whatever to stand on. I concede, if you like, that in respect of the year 1938-39, having been advised in a certain way, it had to consider for itself the advice which it received and, perhaps, to act accordingly, but at the same time we have also to consider this: having collected money, and any doubt that there might be in the matter now being cleared up by the Oireachtas, whether it ought not to fulfil the purpose for which the money was collected, and to pay it over to the Exchequer in order to meet the corporation's liabilities under the Unemployment Assistance Act. That is another matter.

However, in relation to all I have said, we have got to bear in mind that it is more a matter for the Minister for Finance than for me. I am not anxious to press the corporation unduly, but I must say that if a concession were given to the corporation in regard to this matter it cannot be given, in my view, at the expense of the general body of the taxpayers. If the corporation wishes to have accommodation in a matter of this sort I think it would have to be by way of an interest-bearing advance by the Exchequer to the corporation, to enable it to meet its difficulties. The corporation would have to indemnify the general body of the taxpayers and the Exchequer, and the Government which acts on their behalf and is agent for them, for any loss that the Exchequer might sustain. Upon that basis, perhaps, the Minister for Finance might see his way to accommodate the corporation in regard to this matter, but if it does so I would like to make it clear that it would be only an ex gratia concession, that so far as the justice of the case is concerned I do not think the corporation has a strong claim. I leave it at that. Under the section of the Act as it is drafted the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Industry and Commerce, acting perhaps as the agent for the Minister for Finance in this matter, may be able to meet the corporation but, so far as I am concerned at any rate, it is not going to be an easy bargain.

Mr. Hickey

That is to extend it over a period of years?

Mr. MacEntee

Well, we may meet them.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think the Minister has met us fairly in regard to this matter. I would like to put this to him. There is a difference between municipal finance and national finance. In municipal finance the ratepayer is supposed to have a life of but a single year, and pays all his obligations for that year in the 12 months starting on 1st April, and winding up on 31st March. If and when, or if at all, there is a surplus over and above any moneys collected, that surplus has to be devoted towards a remission in the following year, so that if the corporation or if the municipalities collected money in excess of what they paid out in the year 1938-39, they had not any authority and they were not able to keep that money in any suspense account or in reserve. It simply had to be merged and come in in relief of the rate for the year 1939-40. Therefore, their position is different from that of the Ministry with regard to that.

The other point I wish to make is a small one. It is true that if this concession were granted the Corporation or the municipalities would get an advantage but it is unlikely that the unemployment assistance funds will spend the last £20,000 in each of these two or three years that are to come. There is nearly always a little balance in these funds and it would not even be a very great expense upon the State.

With regard to the Corporation considering what our intentions were, they are not entitled to do that. They must take the Act as it is drawn and whatever imperfections there are in it every person, no matter who, a corporation or an individual, if he has a legal right must have a legal remedy. The corporation were informed that they had this legal right and they took it. It now appears that it is a very expensive right. The Minister should bear in mind that during the last 25 or 30 years on various occasions the rates that had been struck by particular local authorities came under review in the courts and on one occasion a very celebrated jurist laid it down that in view of the complicated state of the law in connection with the striking of rates he found it likely, from what he had seen of the cases that had been brought before him, that almost any rate could be broken.

Naturally people do not go in for breaking rates. Occasionally it has been done but a more expensive experiment could scarcely be tried with regard to a local authority, because breaking a rate does not mean that another rate is not going to be struck and the second rate that is struck will have to bear all the expenses attached to breaking the first rate. I make these observations because it is the duty of the law agent of a local authority to advise his council as to what its obligations are. If he did not, it might happen that any ratepayer might come in and smash the rate, which would be a very expensive proceeding. That is a thing that happened in the City of Dublin sometime before I entered public life. A ratepayer successfully exercised his right to call the rate in question. The corporation had not that easy approach to Parliament that the Minister now has and it cost them a very considerable sum of money. It is therefore not fair to blame these local authorities for looking after their rights or privileges. Their business is to pay out only the smallest amount they are obliged to pay and if they are legally entitled to get out of any payment, they would be very foolish if they did not take advantage of that. We shall withdraw the amendment on the Minister's undertaking to look into the matter.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

Sections 4 to 9 inclusive and the Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?

Mr. MacEntee

If there was no objection, it would be well to take it now.

Mr. Cosgrave

What about the concession?

Mr. MacEntee

The section as it stands will enable me to make the concession. I shall use my influence with the Minister for Finance in that matter. The section enables the Minister to make whatever arrangements he wishes with the bodies concerned.

Mr. Brennan

That is with regard to the time and the number of instalments?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Brennan

But we are voting against the Bill apart from that.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy can challenge a division if he wishes on the Final Stage.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Brennan

I stated on Second Reading that to my mind this Bill was unjust and inequitable, and I still think so. As a matter of fact, I am more convinced, after listening to the Minister arguing for the Bill, of its injustice. I am amazed at some of the arguments which the Minister used. His reply to some of the arguments advanced from this side was lamentable in many respects. The Minister talked of the high standards of decency that should be observed by corporations such as those of Dublin and Cork and other similar bodies. What does the Minister mean by that? Does the Minister allege that these local authorities deliberately and of malice aforethought refused to comply with the Act knowing that they were acting wrongfully? The Minister knows perfectly well that was not so. He knows very well that the members of the Dublin Corporation and their advisers were as well aware, as this House was, of the machinery at the Minister's disposal to compel them to do what he wanted them to do. We had evidence of that before. After all, when the Dublin Corporation and other corporations felt in the year 1938-39 that a wrong construction had been put on the Act which compelled the assessment, they were obliged, in my opinion, as far as conscience and right were concerned, to withhold the amount overpaid in previous years. The Minister endeavoured to make great play out of that by saying that if in the year 1938-39 a doubt had existed in the minds of the local authorities as to the legality of this payment, there might be some justification for withholding that year's contribution. What right, the Minister asked, was there for withholding the amounts which they paid in the previous years and which to their minds were overpayments? I say that if any man in 1938-39 felt he would be wronging those whom he represented in imposing a rate upon them which the law did not demand, he was equally right in deducting from the rate overpayments made for the previous years.

If the Minister will throw his mind back he will remember that he and the Government withheld from county councils grants in respect of unpaid annuities which they were not entitled to withhold, until they brought in an Act removing certain doubts-not alone to remove certain doubts but to make the position legal. I am sure that the Minister was at that time quite clear in his mind that he was obliged in justice to do what he was doing. He should at least pay the same compliment to the local authorities who in 1938-39, on advice tendered to them, felt that they were not obliged to pay this unjust burden. They felt equally obliged to deduct certain moneys which they felt they had overpaid to the Government. If one was reasonable, it follows, as night the day, that the other was reasonable. The Minister referred to the unjust steward. As a matter of fact, my feeling about the matter is that the injustice is entirely on the Government side.

I should like the Minister to answer a question like this. We have at the present time considerable reductions in railway valuations due to a certain court decision. Let the Minister imagine one of these corporations faced with a big reduction of that nature, say in the middle of the year. Would the Minister compel that authority to make a contribution on the gross rating, including the railway rating, which was reduced possibly by £10,000, £12,000 or £15,000? What would the Minister think of that? I think it would be manifestly unfair.

As I pointed out on the Second Reading, the principle involved in this Bill is unjust and inequitable. No man could stand over the injustice of compelling another to pay on an asset that did not exist. If a valuation is not effective for the purposes of a local authority, that local authority should not be compelled to make it effective for anybody else. I am against the Bill as it stands. I think the Minister ought to withdraw whatever imputations he made against local authorities about withholding payment for some ulterior motive when, in reality, that was done from the highest motives, and on behalf of those they represent. The Minister made a good deal of play about the fact that the House had put a certain interpretation upon the wording of the original Bill. When the Minister was speaking, one would imagine that that meant that the House did so on a free vote, and that there was no Party Whip. He might have said: "I brought my Party in here, and I saw that this thing was done. That was our decision." But other Deputies voted against the Bill. They voted against it in order to have the position clarified. There was a combined House against the Minister on that occasion.

The clarification wanted was to ensure that the poundage should be levied on the effective valuation. The Minister would not agree to insert the word "effective" then, and would not have the position clarified. He wanted his own interpretation of the gross valuation, and that is what has caused the present position. I think the Minister's insinuations were unworthy. Apart from that, it was hard to understand exactly what the Minister meant, except that he was endeavouring to hide the real issue. The position reminded me of the man with the three thimbles, where one had to find out under which thimble the pea was. We had a long dissertation from the Minister about the amount of unemployment assistance being paid in the cities. That has nothing to do with this matter. We also had a long dissertation on the reasons why the payments were withheld, and the injustice that was thereby being done to the Government. There was really only one question at issue, whether local authorities should pay on a basis that was not the effective basis. As I think that basis is unjust and inequitable, I am opposed to it.

Mr. Belton

I could understand the Minister, on finding that he wanted money, looking for it, and I could understand, when he discovered a flaw in the Act, remedying that flaw, presuming, of course, that he wanted the larger amount; but I cannot understand him coming in and abusing local authorities for not raising a sum that he considered they should raise, having regard to the fact that these authorities were fortified with legal opinion, that the Minister and his advisers could not controvert. I wonder what sort of administration we would have if any authority struck a rate contrary to law, as interpeted by specialists, in the shape of senior counsel? What right would a rate-making authority have to strike a rate after being advised that it was contrary to the law? What right would that administration have to spend the money? The Minister accused the Dublin Corporation of having levied one year a rate which he said was the proper rate, but not paying it all over to the appropriate Minister. The rate-making authority in the Dublin Corporation consists of a body of men elected by adult suffrage. Every man and woman, 21 years of age and upwards, is entitled to be on the register, and it was by those that the 35 members of the Dublin Corporation were elected. While that is the rate-making authority it is not the spending authority. That body really provides the money for the city manager. He alone has the power to spend the entire amount or any portion of that money.

Would the City Manager, who is an official, have the hardihood to challenge the Government, his ultimate bosses, by saying "I will not pay you this money; I will not do so because I am fortified in my opinion by law"? In his opinion the advice that he got not to pay it was first-class advice. I am not in agreement with the managerial system, but I am in agreement with it when it comes to handling a big concern like the City of Dublin, because the 35 members forming the city council have not the time at their disposal adequately to administer the affairs of a city like Dublin, where the administration runs to about £2,000,000. I must pay this tribute to the strength of character of the City Manager, that when the law was interpreted for him he stood by it, even though the Government was opposed to his view. It is not fair to be casting about such epithets as "perverse action", or the statements with which the Minister stigmatised the Dublin Corporation, for not handing over this money. The individual concerned is an official and has not an opportunity of defending himself here. If the Minister and the City Manager were on an equal footing in a hall, and if there was a discussion about the matter, I know whom I would back.

The iniquity and the want of consideration about this whole matter, especially on the part of a Government that has been preaching economy and warning the people about the hard times ahead, make strange reading. The added burden of Dublin's share represents £67,000 in the coming year's Budget, and in all about £350,000 more than last year will have to be found. That will be the position in a city where unemployment is increasing, notwithstanding the fact that we are told we have had an efficient people's Government in power for the last eight years. I wonder if we could find a much worse Government, judging by that record? The home assistance demand has gone up by £105,000 over last year's estimate.

This further burden is being put on the ratepayers of Dublin, on ratepayers who are not doing anything like the business they were doing last year, and on ratepayers who are groaning under the burden of last year's Supplementary Budget to such an extent that there is not the least doubt that the returns from that Supplementary Budget will be very disappointing and will mean a very rude awakening for the Minister for Finance when he strikes his balance. The yield from these taxes—the extra taxes imposed on commodities, together with those already operating— will be less—and I say this without fear of contradiction—than the yield from the smaller tax last year. That shows the decline in business, and, with a declining business, in a city where nothing is increasing but unemployment, the Minister comes along, not only with increased current expenditure, but with demands for arrears which are due not to the rate-making or rate-spending authorities of the City of Dublin, but to the incompetence of the Minister who did not express, in plain language, what he meant. The people asked for this and they are getting it with a vengeance this year. The day of reckoning will come and I suppose the Government will postpone it as long as they can, but the longer it is postponed, the more fierce it will be when it comes.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything because the matter has been fully thrashed out on the other stages of the Bill. There is only one thing I would say. Deputy Belton has said that the corporation were advised that it was improper for them to pay over to the Exchequer the full proceeds of the rate of 1/10 in the £ which they struck and which, on their demand notes, they said had been struck for the purpose of making this contribution. If it was illegal for the corporation to pay the money over, it was equally illegal for the corporation to strike the rate of 1/10 at all.

Mr. Belton

If the corporation did not strike a sufficient rate, why was not the same remedy applied to the corporation as was applied to the Dublin County Council six years ago, when you proceeded by mandamus to strike a rate?

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy does not want me to put his colleagues in the same position as he was in six years ago?

Mr. Belton

It was not consideration for my colleagues that stayed the Minister's hand.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 32.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Carty, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corish, Richard.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Everett, James.
• Flynn, John.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Mullen, Thomas.
• Munnelly, John.
• Norton, William.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Hickey, James.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kelly, James P.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Francis.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McDevitt, Henry A.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Brigid M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Ward, Conn.

Níl

• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George C.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, William J.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
• Cole, John J.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John A.
• Curran, Richard.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• Lynch, Finian.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Donovan, Timothy J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Ryan, Jeremiah.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.