Committee on Finance. - Unemployment (Relief Works) Bill, 1940—Committee Stage.
(1) In this Act—
the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, the expression "work of public utility" means a work consisting of the construction or improvement of a road, sewer, or waterworks, or a work which tends to improve or protect the public health or to improve the public amenities and the execution of which is within the powers of the local authority concerned;
the word "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister under this Act.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), line 19, after the word "amenities", to insert the words "or a work consisting of the construction or improvement of a port, harbour, dock, quay, or pier, including, inter alia, the widening, deepening, or dredging of the channels, approaches, or other waters leading or adjacent thereto or forming part thereof, or the reclamation or protection from the sea, river, or other waters, of land or sites within or adjacent thereto”.
This is an amendment which seeks to enlarge to some extent the scope of the Bill. During the last 12 months, it is obvious to anyone who has followed the receipts of harbour boards throughout the country, that they have been very hard hit by reason of the war. Up to the time of the war, that is, up to the commencement of the war, harbour boards in this country—at least, speaking of the two principal harbour boards-were very progressive, and in fact we might say the same of nearly all the harbour boards. In the case of the two principal harbour boards there have been extensive schemes of reclamation of land put forward, and it is fairly clear that, by reason of the very big reduction that has taken place in their receipts owing to the ravages of war, they will not be able to undertake these schemes now. This amendment is not put down for the purpose of helping these bodies, but for the purpose of helping on work that has been interrupted by the war. The Minister, in the concluding portion of his speech, said that they had some sort of planning in regard to this matter. I hope that they have, because there is no evidence of any planning, up to this, on the question of really good work that could be done. Very good work has been done in connection with harbour improvements during the last two or three decades, and it is for the purpose of getting some work done, which would be of permanent and lasting benefit, that I put down this amendment.
I think I indicated, in my concluding remarks, that harbour work, or work of this nature, was not work that we could contemplate in a Bill of this sort. It seems to me that it is work that would come, primarily, under the Department of Industry and Commerce, and I do not know that we could do anything under this Bill with regard to such a matter, or ask local authorities, who come under this Bill, to do these things. Certainly, it might be very useful work, but it seems to me that it would be a matter for the Department of Industry and Commerce, who should know the position, to get something done along those lines. I do not know very much about the position of harbour authorities throughout the country. I know that some of them were fairly well off, and that some of them were not so well off, but I also know that some of these authorities, that were fairly well off at one time, arc not so well off now. I am perfectly aware of that. However, there are certain works done in connection with harbours that do not give a lot of employment. Take such work as dredging and so on. That costs a great deal of money—an enormous amount of money, in fact—but there is not a great deal of labour content in works of that nature. However, my main objection to this amendment is that it really does not concern local authorities, and that it is the primary concern of the harbour authorities and of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and I do not want to involve them in this Bill.
The Minister talked, a few moments ago, about planning, experts, and so on, and then proceeded to show us, by his speech, that there will be no planning whatever. Now, this Bill is described as the Unemployment (Relief Works) Bill. The principal object of the Bill is to provide employment. We have been told in this House, over and over again, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, that the Government's trouble is not to find the money to finance schemes, but to find schemes of work which it can finance. Surely, the Minister does not believe for a moment that he is going to convince this House or the country that the Government, even now is prepared to tackle in a serious way this grave question of unemployment when he gets up here and says, in reply to such an amendment as this, that he does not know about that, that it is not a matter for this Bill, that it may be a matter for some other Department, and so on.
I suggest to the Minister that that does not show that there has been any deep consideration of this matter, or that it has been treated as a national matter; but rather that it is going to be treated in a piecemeal way. In other words, it means that for one scheme we must go to the Department of Local Government and Public Health, for another scheme to the Department of Industry and Commerce, for another scheme to the Department of Finance or the Board of Works, and for something else to some other Department. I suggest to the Minister seriously that, again, he is only tinkering with this whole problem of unemployment and that, if that problem is going to be approached in that particular manner and in that way, then this Bill is going to have just about as much effect on the problem of unemployment as all the other Bills we have had in this House from time to time. The Minister talked about the very small amount of employment to be given in works connected with harbours, piers, and so on. He mentioned the large amount of money to be spent and the small labour content in connection with such schemes. In that connection he mentioned dredging, but the amendment we are now discussing is not concerned with dredging. Dredging is a thing that is done as an ordinary matter of form, and we know that it does not give much employment, but it is work that has to be done. There is nothing, however, about that in the amendment that is now before us.
I should like to say that we have a case in Cork where the Harbour Commissioners have to get permission in order to undertake certain work, and at the moment we have a reclamation scheme that is held up mainly because we have not the money to go on with it. I should like to ask the Minister this question. Is there any reason why the grants in relief of unemployment should not be used for such a purpose as that? At the moment, the harbour authorities there are engaged in building quay walls, and they had to get sanction from the corporation to build these walls and to make arrangements for sewerage, and so on. Is there any reason why these unemployment relief grants could not be expended by the Harbour Board in the manner suggested by Deputy Cosgrave? I do not see any reason why they should not, if these works are to be of any lasting benefit to the country or to the local authorities concerned.
In reading this Bill, it seems to me that the Minister is interpreting this in the narrowest form, as laid down by the Bill: namely, that a work of public utility means a work consisting of the construction or improvement of a road, sewer, or waterworks, or a work which tends to improve or protect the public health. Apparently the Government fear that there may be some considerable increase in unemployment, and they want to be ready to provide for it.
The way the Minister has received Deputy Cosgrave's amendment shows that it is to be interpreted in its narrowest sense, and according to the very letter of this Bill. If there is anything people complain of at present, it is that everything that seems to be nn improvement and to give employment has to be paid for out of the rates. That, in its turn, reduces employment and the making of improvements by private individuals or local authorities. There is one thing I notice particularly, and that is, that apparently there is no provision of plots that the working population could cultivate. If we are going to have any large increase in unemployment, or have to face a position in which people will be left without work, surely one of the most important tests that could be applied is this: "Have they done their best for themselves? Are they growing vegetables for their wives and families?"
Trade union labour, I hope.
Whether it is trade union labour or non-trade union labour, if they try to feed their wives and families, I suggest that would be a very important test of their capacity and honesty. For a man who can say: "I am honestly trying to get work, and cannot get it, but I grow some food for my family and I cannot do anything more," I would certainh have the greatest sympathy. It seems to me that in a Bill such as this there should be some provision so that such plots could he provided, and even places taken over that could afterwards become public parks. The principal point I wish to make is that the greatest need now is to get for the minimum expenditure an increase in the real value of the subsistence allowance given to the unemployed. How far that allowance can be increased by their own labour remains to be seen; but it they are cultivating plots, such work would be a kind of half-way bridge between the position of agricultural labourers, who can grow potatoes and vegetables, and city dwellers. I put it to the Minister that it is a mistake such a provision should be left out of this Bill. It forms the acid test of the honesty of people who are unemployed and would provide a real contribution to the wages they get.
I have sympathy with the amendment moved by Deputy Cosgrave, but, at the same time, I realise the Minister's point of view. I suppose the Deputy knows that harbour commissioners come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and that the Minister for Local Government has nothing to say to them. That is the position with regard to the large harbour boards, but there are certain harbours and piers under the control of county councils, which the Minister might consider suitable for work to be done on the lines suggested. If the amendment were accepted I wonder who is going to pay the local contributions. As Deputy Cosgrave knows, many of the harbour boards are not paying their way at present. If the Government is going to pay the whole amount, that is all to the good. I think many corporations and urban councils would be very reluctant to pay a contribution for the dredging of harbours or work of that kind, because it entails the expenditure of a large amount of money. There are some scheduled harbours in the maritime counties directly under the Board of Works that require a good deal of attention from time to time, but the Board of Works is very reluctant to spend money on them. If the attention of the Board of Works was directed to the improvement of these harbours a good deal of the money visualised in the Bill could be spent on them. Before this amendment is disposed of, I suggest that we should deal with amendment No. 5, because the position is that the Minister is right in saying that he has no power to accept an amendment of this kind where harbour commissioners are dealt with by the Department of Industry and Commerce.
Surely the Deputy is not serious in saying that?
I am. Tell me where I am wrong.
Here is a Bill, and the case is put forward that only those bodies mentioned in it can be dealt with.
Unless amendment No. 5 is passed.
It is entirely a matter for the Minister. In connection with the giving of useful employment he would have something when the period is over, that would be of benefit and that would keep harbours up to date. There would be an improvement generally by such work as reclamation or stopping the inroads of the sea. It is entirely with a view to seeing that whatever employment is given will be useful, and that some results will accrue from the expenditure of public money, that the amendment was put down, but the Minister says he cannot accept it.
Can the Minister say whether what is contained in the amendment moved by Deputy Cosgrave would be of assistance in connection with the proposed Ports and Harbours Bill? We have been repeatedly informed, even recently, by the Minister that the report of the Piers and Harbours Tribunal was being emplemented, and that the Bill was ready for introduction. Can he say whether, under the terms of that Bill, the ports will come more than they do now under the control of local authorities, and that he has considered the amendment in the light of the passage of such legislation? There are certain harbours in this State under the direct control of the Board of Works and, as far as I know, it would be quite in order to accept the amendment for the purpose of carrying out the works suggested in the case of these harbours. Is there any difficulty about accepting the terms of the amendment and making them applicable to the relief of unemployment, by carrying out work in harbours under the control of the Board of Works?
There is this difficulty, that that question is under another Minister. I should like to point out that grants have been given in the past under the Unemployment Acts to some harbour boards. If I am going to take in that work it means recasting the whole Bill. I emphasise that this is a machinery Bill. To do as suggested would mean recasting the whole Bill and bringing that question under the Department of Industry and Commerce. I do not think harbours have been very much up against difficulties as far as the Unemployment Vote is concerned, as they got grants from time to time.
Is it the policy of the Government, whenever a Minister is bringing in a Bill for the relief of unemployment, to see that in his own little narrow groove he will be able to contribute something towards the relief of unemployment, instead of the Government coming along as a Government with a plan for the relief of unemployment which will give every able-bodied man out of work a week's work or 52 weeks' work in the year?
I am not in favour of the amendment, for this reason. Many of the harbour boards—the one that I am concerned with, at all events —are run quite independently of the public body which will be called upon to put up their proportion of the money necessary to carry out whatever schemes may be propounded by technical experts employed for that purpose. The board I am concerned with, at all events, is in the happy position of not owing one penny to anybody. There are few harbour boards in this country—in these islands, in fact—which could make that statement. I do not think it would be right to saddle our ratepayers with an additional burden in order to carry out a scheme of improvements, even in the harbour, where—as anybody with any connection with harbour work is well aware—you get a minimum return for the amount expended. As I take it, the intention of the Bill is to provide maximum work with minimum expenditure. Certainly, if the harbour boards of the country are to be included in this, it will mean that there will be a great deal of expenditure and very little return for it. All of this work is done by tidal arrangements, as anyone connected with a harbour is aware. You have got to knock men off when they may not have done more than four or five hours' work and, for this reason, I think it is my duty here to oppose the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (1), page 2, line 20, to delete the words "the local authority concerned" and substitute the words "any local authority or any two or more local authorities acting jointly".
This is a drafting amendment. It is necessary to make provision for works which are within the powers of two or more local authorities, where the work might be within the jurisdiction of two separate authorities.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (1), line 20, after the word "concerned" to insert the words "or a work consisting of the execution or improvement of a drainage scheme or drainage works, including the draining of agricultural land or of land capable of being used for agricultural purposes if suitably drained."
It is very much on the lines of the policy that was in amendment No. 1, that is, with the hope of seeing some result after this money is expended. The Drainage Act of 1928 which the Minister referred to, was worked in certain parts of the country. This particular amendment would, on the basis of the contribution that the Minister stated on the last day he had given to local authorities, make drainage much more attractive than it is at the moment. In the same way, had amendment No. 1 been adopted, it would have made reclamation and that sort of work more attractive to harbour boards and they would have been able to do the work without putting any extra tax in the £ on the valuation—it could have been done out of funds or dues. In this particular case there were quite a number of drainage schemes in different parts of the country which could not be undertaken by reason of the fact that they were uneconomic. Taking the estimate of the contribution that is being given by the Minister towards certain works in this country, it would be possible now to do this sort of work and it would be of lasting benefit, it would give considerable employment, it would improve the productivity of the land, it would help to improve the public health of the people, and, generally speaking, it would be very beneficial.
I should like to support the amendment proposed by Deputy Cosgrave, even though I lack any sort of enthusiasm for the Bill. Nevertheless, I would like to see it emerge from this House in its best possible form. This amendment has very many attractions. In the first place, it would give to those people— as far as it applies to local bodies outside Dublin—who pay the biggest share of the rates, some participation in the benefits that accrue when schemes of this sort are initiated. Hitherto, most relief schemes have been devoted to sewerage and waterworks, which give very little benefit to the agriculturalist. This would offer an opportunity to give work and initiate schemes directly beneficial to him. There is a further attraction.
We have experience in many counties —particularly in mine—of schemes put through the county council under the 1928 Act—the minor drainage schemes—and they were in the main very successful. Deputy Cosgrave referred to works which in other ways would have been uneconomic in the ordinary drainage scheme under the Board of Works. I have a couple in mind: I quoted one to the Parliamentary Secretary here when the minor drainage scheme lapsed and when we asked that it be renewed. I know of cases where schemes were initiated and eventually abandoned because, after consideration, they were said to be uneconomic. Afterwards, they were undertaken by the local county surveyor and completed at less than 50 per cent. of the original estimate, and completed to the satisfaction of everybody concerned. To my mind it was tragic that that Act should have been allowed to lapse: nothing has been brought in since to supplant it and this would give an opportunity to local bodies to initiate some schemes of the kind.
There is another attraction in it. Drainage schemes of this kind would be, from the point of view of the intent of the Bill—unemployment—probably the most attractive form of all. There is no other kind of scheme which could be initiated—and I defy any Deputy to prove that—of any sort or description, be it sewerage, house-building or water works, where the ratio of employment to materials is greater, than in drainage. Practically the whole of the money spent in drainage goes directly to labour and, purely from the unemployment point of view there is a greater attraction in drain age schemes than in any other form of work. I think that it would be wise that the amendment be accepted. I heartily support it. The Minister rather insinuated, when speaking on the Money Resolution, that it is outside the scope of the Bill, being harbour works and drainage. If that might be said of the harbour works, we know that it was the definite practice of county councils and other local bodies to undertake schemes of this sort under the Act that has now lapsed.
Mr. Brennan
The Minister a while ago, when speaking on the Money Resolution, made a very good case— accidentally, of course—for the inclusion of this amendment, when he said there had been undertaken in the country works of very doubtful utility. That is true. Roads of very doubtful utility have been constructed, and time and again, when the case came before the House here, complaint was made that where the amount of unemployment was greatest there was not work to be done. The reason was that you were confining yourself to certain types of work on roads and matters of that kind. Here is a chance for a local authority to step in and do very useful work.
The Minister, in regard to this amendment, cannot urge the objection which he had to the Port and Docks Board, because here he has the Minor Arterial Drainage Act to go on, an Act which the local authorities have worked in the past. In this case, therefore, you have tradition and usage. I do not think we are going to get very far if we are to be circumscribed by the limitations and expressions in those Bills, by the extent to which we may employ people and the type of work that we may employ them on. The Minister said he understood that the 1928 Minor Arterial Drainage Act was not operated to any great extent. I imagine the Minister would be greatly surprised if he were to read the evidence that was given before the Drainage Commission by the representatives of the Roscommon County Council. In their evidence he will find that, in the County Roscommon, we completed between 30 and 40 schemes under that Act. Every one of them proved to be satisfactory. There were some that we could not put through because they were not, in themselves, economic. I am not able to say whether, at the moment, the unemployment figures in those localities would warrant the local authority undertaking some of those schemes. I think, at all events, it ought to be given the chance of undertaking them, and, therefore, I do not see any reason why the Minister should not accept the amendment.
We appear to be greatly tied down by tradition and usage or, to put it bluntly, by red tape. As I said on a former occasion, this red tape has been the cause of the downfall of democracy in the world. If there is some work to be done, let us undertake it and not be tied down by usage or tradition. I sympathise with the point of view of Deputy Davin, when he asked if it were the Minister's opinion that every Department should bring in a separate Bill to deal with its own unemployment problem. Of course, it would be ridiculous to do such a thing. In the Local Government Bill, which is still before the House, it is proposed that at least three Ministers will have authority under it. If the purpose of this Bill is to provide work for unemployed people, then we should not allow anything to stand in the way of doing that. If the Minister wants to have something done that will be of benefit to the country, then I submit to him that he ought to permit local authorities to undertake drainage work under this Bill.
I think if the Minister is really serious in his assertions as to the object of this Bill—that its purpose is to relieve unemployment— he should not only welcome but accept this amendment. The local authorities have had experience in the carrying out of drainage work. As a matter of fact, at the present time the officials of local authorities are carrying out drainage work under minor relief schemes. They are familiar with all aspects of minor drainage. Therefore, I think there should be no objection, on the part of the Minister, to the amendment. Its acceptance will confer a benefit not only on the country generally, but on the local ratepayers who will have to bear a large portion of the expenditure under this measure.
This is a very important amendment, and I hope the Minister will accept it. Drainage is badly needed all over the country, and it is a very useful type of work to have unemployed people engaged on. We are all aware that the drainage of land has been badly neglected, especially arterial drainage, involving a number of people. Individuals are not in a position to carry out that work. Therefore, I think the local authorities should be given the power asked for. The expenditure of money on work of this kind will give some return to the country, and hence I hope the Minister will not hesitate to accept the amendment.
If the Minister is genuinely determined to do something really big under this Bill with the object of solving the unemployment problem, then I would urge on him to accept the amendment. It is patent to everybody who knows the country districts that there is a vast amount of drainage work to be done. That applies not to one county but to the country generally. As the Minister is taking power to impose certain duties on local authorities—I refer to the power to oblige two or three neighbouring local authorities to contribute towards some particular scheme—I suggest to him that the most suitable form of unemployment schemes that could be undertaken are drainage schemes which would benefit not only the area of one local authority but the areas of several local authorities. In addition, they would be of permanent value to those localities long after the employment created under the Bill had ceased. I am not very much in favour of this Bill as a method of dealing with the unemployment problem, because I think it should be dealt with by the central authority rather than by a local authority. At the same time, I think this amendment, so far as it goes, would, if accepted, do something towards making the Bill a real contribution to the solution of unemployment.
I am not sure that this amendment would confer statutory powers on local authorities. But that is another matter. It may be, as Deputy Brennan says, that in the County Roscommon the 1928 Minor Drainage Act was availed of to a considerable extent. The evidence in the Department, however, goes to show that in very many other counties it was not very much availed of, and, as a matter of fact, it was allowed to lapse at the end of five years. So far as I know, there was no demand from Deputies or others to have the Act revived. It is felt that the carrying out of drainage work in county areas is not a proper function for a local authority, except, of course, in urban areas where drainage, as a public health matter, has to be attended to. The main objection to the amendment is that a comparatively short time ago a drainage commission sat and took a considerable body of evidence. I believe that commission has submitted a report which is under consideration. I do not want at this stage to anticipate its findings, even if I desired to accept the amendment. I think that sufficient useful schemes will be found without introducing drainage schemes at this stage to use up whatever funds we have available to deal with the unemployment problem.
Mr. Brennan
Surely the Minister will admit that, while it is not the ordinary function of a local authority to carry out drainage schemes, they have done this work successfully. Neither is it the ordinary function of the local authority to provide for unemployment, but they are being asked to do that. That is really the purpose of the Bill. As the Minister has mentioned, we, in County Roscommon, have been carrying out schemes which are of very doubtful utility and suggestions have actually been made regarding the transport of unemployed from one area to another where more useful schemes could be carried out. It seems to me that the Minister and his Department are afraid that these schemes will confer benefit on somebody. I would not be afraid of that. If you can describe a work as a public utility work, it seems to me that, so far as the Minister is concerned, it is all right, but if the proposed work will confer benefit on anybody, then the local authority is not to be allowed to do it.
The Minister said that it was not the function of the local authority to undertake drainage. That is a surprising statement considering the evidence we have in relation to the minor schemes of drainage and also the evidence in regard to the handing over to the county councils for maintenance of drainage schemes undertaken by the Board of Works. For anybody to tell us that it is not the function of a local authority to undertake drainage is ridiculous.
How did you find the local body liked those schemes of drainage when they had to collect the rates from the people adjoining?
The one disadvantage of the minor drainage scheme arose out of its being rushed through the House so that Deputies could not get a proper scale inserted in it. If the scheme did not operate in some counties, that was due to the amount of the grant, which was limited to 25 per cent. The grants available under schemes administered by the Board of Works exceeded that figure. If the Act were renewed with a larger grant, it would be generally availed of.
Mr. Morrissey
Would the Minister consider changing the short title of the Bill? It is entitled the Unemployment (Relief Works) Bill. I suggest it should be entitled the Local Authorities (Relief Works) Bill.
It could be put that way, too.
Mr. Brennan
I want to correct a statement that might create apprehension. The Minister asked how the local authorities liked collecting the drainage rates. The Roscommon County Council have had no difficulty in collecting the minor arterial drainage rates. These works were very satisfactory and the people were well satisfied with them: That is in contrast with the schemes carried out by the Board of Works. There, we have had difficulty in collecting the rates.
I should like the Minister to go round the country and interview people who have had experience of these schemes. In connection with some of them, the attitude was that there was no hurry, that there was a certain amount of money and work for a certain number of men. The schemes now proposed would show some result.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 2, to add at the end of sub-section (2) a new paragraph as follows:—
(e) the joint board of a united district established under the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, or this Act.
This amendment is necessary in view of the special provision in Section 6 in relation to united districts.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 (Deputy Cosgrave) not moved.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(1) Whenever the Minister is of opinion that a particular work of public utility which is being or is about to be executed by a local authority was or is being undertaken for the purpose of providing employment for unemployed persons in a particular area, the Minister may (subject to the limitation imposed by this section) certify that such work was or is being undertaken by such local authority for the purpose of providing employment for unemployed persons in a particular area specified in such certificate.
(3) A certificate may be given by the Minister under this section notwithstanding that the work to which such certificate relates was begun before the passing of this Act or that the work to which such certificate relates is undertaken in pursuance of an order in that behalf made by the Minister under the next following section.
(4) In this Act—
the expression "certified work" means a work in respect of which a certificate has been given by the Minister under this section, and the expression "executing authority", when used in relation to a certified work, means the local authority mentioned in the certificate given by the Minister in respect of such work as the local authority undertaking such work.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In sub-section (1), line 35, after the wold "area" to insert the words "or where a local authority, in order to provide employment, formulates a scheme of improvement or development, or initiates a public work which is likely to be of public benefit or of a generally constructive character".
The purpose of, this amendment is to give a local authority an opportunity to anticipate a particular work which is likely to be undertaken in a year, two years or, perhaps, three years. For many reasons, it might not be expedient to undertake certain works in a given year or the local authority might not have the necessary money. The intention of this amendment, whether the phraseology of it carries it, out or not, is to give a local authority power to anticipate by a few years, at which time it might, by receiving assistance from the Minister, be able to undertake a particular work.
I should not be against the amendment at all if it helped to carry out what the Deputy has in mind. I presume that what the Deputy has in mind is a work of public utility, and that is covered by the definition in the first section. The Bill, of course comes to an end two years after the emergency. I take it that the Deputy has in mind a period of planning?
I do not think that the amendment would give effect to that. If the Deputy leaves the matter over until Report Stage, I shall look into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 7.—Before sub-section (2), page 2, to insert a new subsection as follows:—
(2) Whenever the Minister is of opinion that, for the purpose of providing employment for unemployed persons in a particular area, it is expedient that a particular work of public utility which a particular local authority has power by law (including this Act or any order mane thereunder) to execute should be undertaken and executed by that local authority, the Minister may (subject to the limitations imposed by this section) after consultation with such local authority certify that such work should be undertaken by such local authority for the purpose of providing employment for unemployed persons in such particular area.
Amendment No. 8.—In sub-section (3), page 2, to delete all words from the word "or" in line 46 to the end of the sub-section.
SECTION 3.
Amendment No. 10.—To delete snb-section (1), page 3.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 15.—To delete sub-section (1), page 3, and to substitute a new sub-section as follows:—
(1) Whenever the Minister is of opinion that, for the purpose of providing employment for unemployed persons, it is expedient that a particular work of public utility consisting of the construction of a new road or the improvement of an existing road or partly of such construction and partly of such improvement should be undertaken and executed by a local authority which is not charged by virtue of Section 24 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), with the construction and maintenance of such road (whether new or existing or partly new and partly existing) or is charged by virtue of the said section with the construction of a portion or portions only of such road, the Minister may, subject to the limitation imposed by this section and after consultation with such local authority and with the council charged by virtue of the said Section 24 with the construction and maintenance of such road or of the portion or portions thereof with the construction and maintenance of which such local authority is not charged as aforesaid (as ths case may he), by order transfer to such local authority from the said council all the powers and duties of the said council under the said Section 24 or any other enactment in relation to the construction and maintenance of such road or the said portion or portions thereof, as the case may be.
I move amendment No. 7 and I suggest that that amendment and amendments Nos. 8, 10 and 15 be taken together. On reconsideration, it was thought desirable to transfer the provisions of Section 3 (1) to Section 2 and to provide that whenever the Minister is of opinion that a particular work should be undertaken, he should have power to certify that such work should be undertaken for the purpose of providing employment for unemployed persons in a particular area. The provisions of Section 3 (1) are included in the first amendment. Section 3 (2) sets out that it shall be the duty of a local authority which is the executing authority in respect of a certified work to execute and complete such work with all reasonable speed. When the Minister certifies a work, it is not necessary to retain the power to require a local authority to undertake the work, and that is being dropped, because the following sub-section says that when work is certified, a local authority shall carry it out with all reasonable speed. These are really drafting amendments.
Mr. Byrne
Will the Minister say how the local authorities are to finance such a scheme, or has he any idea as to how they should do so? Has he taken any account of the condition of the finances of a council to which he is suggesting these schemes? So far we have heard nothing as to the financing of the proposals lie has in mind.
I indicated to Deputies that what I have in mind is that these moneys will be provided in the same way as in the past, and in somewhat similar proportions as in the past, for roads, minor improvements and public health works.
Mr. Byrne
Does the Minister suggest an immediate increase in the rates or can a council borrow the money and spread it over a longer period? Is it his idea that the scheme he would have in mind would have to be done immediately and the rates in the area increased? Because if any big scheme were forced on the City of Dublin, it would mean an increase in the rates. We have a large number of housing schemes at present on which the people are not able to pay the rents now demanded, and the City Manager has informed us that for every 6d. increase in rates, the cottage dwellers and flat dwellers would have to pay a penny extra in rent, although not one of them would get any benefit out of this Bill. I should like to know if it is the Minister's idea that the rates should go up in order to provide the necessary finances. The people of the city are not all road workers. There is a very large proportion of warehousemen, painters, carpenters, and men in other trades unemployed, whose rents would go up as a result of the Bill, and who woldd get no benefit from it.
I did not mention the question of borrowing, but borrowing is contemplated where big works are to be undertaken by a public body. Borrowing is certainly contemplated in respect of that portion for which they would be responsible.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 agreed to.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
In sub-section (4), page 3, line 8, to delete the words "undertaking such work" and to substitute the words "by whom such work was, is being, or should be undertaken."— (Minister for Local Government and Public Health.)
Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Sub-section (1) says:—
Whenever the Minister is of opinion that a particular work of public utility which is being or is about to be started is being undertaken for the purpose of providing employment....
Do I take it from that that if a local authority is about to start on a work which may have a high labour content but cannot definitely be said to be started for the purpose of relieving unemployment, it does not come within the operation of the Bill? It is just a question of what is going to be the definition of the phrase "for the purpose of providing employment" and whether, in fact, those words should be there at all. Who is to certify that it is being started for that purpose? A local authority might be starting to work and then this Bill comes along, and they say: "We will say that it is for the purpose of providing employment" although it may not have been started originally for that purpose. Who is to say that it was, in fact, so started? There seems to be a danger of complications in that phrase.
That surely would not arise unless a grant had been given. These grants are given under certain conditions.
Does that mean that if in respect of a, job like the building of an airport, which the Cork Corporation and County Council were asked to undertake, one of the bodies does not agree, it is possible for the Minister to say: "The job must be done and you will have to contribute your quota to the cost of it"? I have in mind the case of Cork where such a thing has been in contemplation.
I think an airport is a different matter.
Mr. Morrissey
Where two bodies are asked to contribute and one will not agree to do so, is the Minister in a position under this Bill to say: "This has to be done and you will have to do the needful"?
The work has not been started?
The site has been selected, but the corporation would not agree to bear the heavy financial burden involved.
I suppose it could come under the Bill, if we were satisfied as to the labour content of it.
It has a very big labour content, of course.
It would add to the public amenities of the place, I suppose.
The position put up by Deputy Hickey is the sort of case I was trying to cover. The Minister asked Deputy Hickey if the work had actually started, and Deputy Hickey said it had not. Therefore, it can come under this Bill, but, if the work had already been started, it could not come under the Bill, because neither the local authority nor the Minister could say that it was being done for the purpose of relieving unemployment. That is the point I tried to make.
That it is a work of public amenity and relieved unemployment may be a condition of any grant given.
This Bill actually says: "Is being or is about to be undertaken for the purpose of providing employment for unemployed persons." Apparently, if the Cork Corporation did start an airport, not for the purpose of giving employment but for the purpose of having an airport, they could not rank for this, but if the Minister says to the Cork Corporation: "You must build this airport", then it is being built for the provision of employment. There is a danger that there may be a work with a high labour content which cannot come under the Bill because of these words.
What advantage does a local authority derive from the fact that work may be certified as being started to relieve unemployment?
It puts them in a position in which they can plan ahead. Section 7 and the following sections apply only to certified works.
Is the Minister satisfied that those words should remain?
I think they should, but I will clear the matter up with the Deputy before Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(1) Whenever the Minister is of opinion that, for the purpose of providing employment for unemployed persons in a particular area, it is expedient that a particular work of public utility which a particular local authority has power by law (including this Act) to execute should be undertaken and executed by that local authority, the Minister may, by order made after consultation with such local authority, require such local authority to undertake and execute the said work, and thereupon it shall be the duty of such local authority to undertake; execute, and complete the said work with all reasonable speed.
(2) It shall be the duty of the local authority which is the executing authority in respect of a certified work to execute and complete such work with all reasonable speed.
(3) Whenever a local authority refuses or, in the opinion of the Minister, has failed to do anything which is declared by this section to be the duty of such local authority, the Minister may by order made by him under Section 72 of the Local Government Art, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), but without holding any such local inquiry as is mentioned in that section, dissolve such local authority, and thereupon the said Section 72 as amended by subsequent enactments shall apply and have effect accordingly.
I move amendment No. 10. This is consequential on amendment No. 7.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 reads:—
At the end of sub-section (1), page 3, line 18, to add the words "Provided always that no such order shall be made by the Minister earlier in any financial year than two months before the date fixed by law for the consideration by the local authority of their estimates for the ensuing financial year and that the local authority shall be deemed to carry out the work with all reasonable speed if the work is carried out within the ensuing financial year."
The object of this amendment, which obviously cannot function in its present form, the sub-section to which it is an amendment having gone, is twofold: firstly, that a local authority may have advance knowledge of what it is expected to do. At present, a local authority very often receives word in November that a certain amount of money will be available before the end of the year for expenditure on relief works, and they submit a list without delay, and so forth.
That does not give the local authority time to have a proper scheme thought out, and the Minister has told us that this is a planning Bill. If it is, then the local authority should be given the best possible opportunity of planning a long way ahead what works it is going to do. That is one object of it, that there should be more time given to the local authority to have its plans ready. The second object is that the local authority may be able to know in what position it is from a rating point of view. As the Bill stands at the moment, there is nothing whatever to prevent the Minister, on the day after the rate has been struck, telling the local authority——
The Deputy may not move the amendment; the amendment has been ruled out of order.
Because it is an amendment to a sub-section which has been deleted. The matter may be raised on a general section, but the amendment cannot be moved.
Mr. Morrissey
The Deputy should get an opportunity of moving it on another occasion. It is not the Deputy's fault that it is out of order.
The question may be raised on the section.
I think the matter can be satisfactorily disposed of now. Suppose the local authority has struck its rate, and has not provided for a work which it may have to undertake. This is to deal with emergencies, as well as planning ahead. In a case of that sort you want to act with speed, and there is nothing to prevent the local authority from borrowing the necessary moneys, and dealing with the interest or otherwise in the rates for the following year.
That is exactly the point. In the meantime there may be a further certificate, and in the one year they have got to recoup the previous year and pay for that year as well. There would be very little stability about the rates.
Those are matters that arise after consultation.
Will the borrowing powers of the public body be taken into consideration for that particular temporary purpose?
We try to facilitate the local authorities in whatever way they find most suitable.
Amendment No. 11 is not moved.
With the reservation that we will draw up something for the Report Stage?
If you think it is necessary. I move amendment No. 12:—
In sub-section (2), page 3, line 20, to insert the word "undertake" before the word "execute".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 maybe discussed together.
I move amendments Nos. 13 and 14:—
In sub-section (3), after line 24 and before line 25 to insert the following:—"direct a consulting engineer of not less than five years' standing as a consulting engineer to report to him generally on the merits of the proposed work and on the objections of the local authority, and for that purpose the said consulting engineer may in his discretion hold a public sitting of an inquiry on not more than two days.
(4) On receiving such report the Minister may".
At the end of the section to add two new sub-sections as foliows:—
(4) On the first occasion where a local authority refuses or in the opinion of the Minister objects to do anything which is declared by this section to be the duty of such local authority, and the said refusal or objection arises out of the opposition of the local authority to the terms and conditions of employment imposed by the Government or any Department of State, the Minister shall cause an inquiry to be held to ascertain the merits of the objection, the estimated costs of the works under the terms and conditions imposed, and the estimated costs under the normal terms and conditions of employment by such local authority.
(5) One such inquiry into a refusal or objection on the part of a local authority in respect of terms or conditions of employment shall determine such objection or refusal for 12 months.
Amendment, No. 13 deals almost entirely with that question which has been under consideration for so long— what is called the rotational scheme. My opinion is that the rotational scheme is immoral; that it is unjust; that it has in it evils the fruits of which we are likely to be reaping for many years to come. If one desires to give certain moneys out to a large number of people, give them out, but do not interrupt or interfere with either a man's normal economy and the chance of keeping himself in a decent position in society, or with the normal manner in which business is done. Within the last five years one employer here in this House made the statement that in any place in this country he would know whether the work which was going on was a relief work or whether it was an ordinary normal activity either of a local authority or an individual. Those are very considerable sums of money, and as far as one can judge it is quite possible that local authorities may, by reason of this measure, undertake certain works which, if it had not been for this emergency, if it had not been for this Bill, and if it had not been for the situation which had been created if not fostered by the Government, they would have got done by men drawing normal wages and giving a normal output for those normal wages. One of the dangers that may quite possibly arise out of this whole business is that the low output which may, be anticipated—which is almost certain to arise out of this rotational scheme—may become the standard of work in this country in future, and that would be a deplorable state of affairs for the men involved, for the economy of the State, tor its future prosperity and for the peace, happiness and contentment of the ordinary working people themselves, as well as for everybody else.
What I am asking in this case is that, in the event of a dispute arising between the Minister and the local authority, a dispute having its roots in an objection to this particular form of employment, a consulting engineer will be called in. I am not committing myself at all to that particular individual; if a better or a more suitable person can be found I am perfectly satisfied, as long as the principle of the thing is maintained, but it appears to me that a consulting engineer would probably be the best person; an ordinary practising engineer would do. Let him be called in to give his opinion for the Minister's information and for the information of other Ministers in the State who have unfortunately wedded themselves to this particular form of providing employment. I should like them to learn from a person qualified to give an opinion what his view is regarding the value of the output in those particular cases. In my opinion—I may he wrong, but my opinion is fortified by that of a number of people to whom I have spoken— you are simply getting value for the money you are spending, and no more; you are not even getting value for it in the sense that if yon were to spend that money on normal wages you would get far better results from the amount involved.
The other print is a much more important one. It is a matter which has been the subject of public controversy not of to-day or yesterday. It is something like 40 years since a man called. I think, Jack London, wrote about this subject. He made a study of what he called the submersed tenth. He was particularly anxious, in all the long time during which he gave attention to the subject, to bring before the public the danger that there was to society in keeping a man down beneath the normal standard of living which he should enjoy. He pointed out, on more than one occasion, that unemployment of itself was an evil, but that when unemployment resulted in a man having to part with the furniture of his house, and so on, he himself deteriorated in health and in character, until a time came when it was not possible to restore that man to an economic position or make him a useful member of society. It is for those reasons I have put down this amendment, and I should be glad of the Minister's very serious consideration of it. If he wishes, I am prepared to leave it over until the next stage, but I do think that he ought to examine this matter personally; that he ought to go around and see the result of it, interview people who have had experience of it, and make up his own mind on the subject, because I think, if he does that, some really useful purpose will have been served by this Bill.
I wish to support Deputy Cosgrave in this matter. When we opposed this scheme, I want the Minister and every member of this House to know that we did not do so in the hope of any personal advantage. We know a good deal about the mentality of the unemployed when they are treated as such. They feel they are being treated as a class apart in the community, because they are unemployed, when they can get only three or four days a week on a job of that kind. In order to get some kind of agreement, we are prepared to modify our demand and ask that at least when he is employed he should get a full week or a number of weeks rather, than three days in so many weeks.
I am quite satisfied that if the Minister and those responsible for it would examine the position they would find there is a good case to be made for it because very often weather is broken and the men on four days a week relief work have to do the four days' work in two weeks. There is another aspect of the case the Minister should look into. When men are on four days work a week they have to contribute to the National Health Insurance Fund, Widows' and Orphans' Fund and Unemployment Insurance Fund just the same as the man who is guaranteed 52 weeks' work in the year. That is a hardship. I would support Deputy Cosgrave—and I am glad he has come to that viewpoint—in asking ths Minister to consider that aspect of rotational work.
I would like the Minister to intervene now, if he is going to give his views on this question, and tell us what will be the policy of the Department in relation to schemes started under this Bill. Is it the intention, when this Bill comes into operation, to extend the so-called rotational schemes? Is it to be extended to all schemes for which grants are given? If the Minister were to indicate that now, and if he were to make a clear statement to the House in regard to that particular point it might help to shorten the discussion.
Of course, this is called a Relief Works Bill, and I assume the conditions attached to other unemployment grants may attach to this. As I mentioned on the discussion on the Money Resolution, I have not any very definite views one way or the other because I have not had experience of this particular position, but those who have experience of it— and the Board of Works have had experience of it over a considerable time in the administration of unemployment relief grants—have given it very full examination, I understand, and their views on this matter are certainly of considerable importance. The difficulty, of course, with all unemployment relief grants is that you cannot get sufficient money to go round. It would be a very desirable thing if you could provide every unemployed person with work. The position is you are not able to do that and, as Deputies know, rotational work is related to the amount of unemployment assistance that is being paid, but, as I pointed out earlier on the Money Resolution, in no case is it under 30 per cent. I believe that similar conditions will attach to relief grants.
In regard to the other amendment in Deputy Cosgrave's name, I understand what he means is that where a board are refusing to carry out the work on account of conditions imposed on them in regard to this rotational labour, some outside engineer should hold an inquiry. That is not possible, because if you want to bring in an outside engineer, and to vest him with the statutory powers that he would require in order to send for papers and witnesses and to hold an inquiry, you would have to send him before the Civil Service Commission and have him appointed as an inspector. That is a matter that could he got over in some other way if it was desirable, but I do not think it is. However, as I said, my experience in regard to rotational schemes is very short, but I can rely on the experience of the Board of Works and other Departments concerned in these relief grants and of my own Department, too, that it is the best we can do in the present circumstances.
I fail to see in either of the amendments before the House any direct reference to rotational schemes. The matter was discussed during the Second Stage of this Bill. It arose again on the Money Resolution. Deputy Cosgrave did, I understand, raise the matter subsequently, and Deputy Hickey referred to it briefly. It seems to be irrelevant. However, as it has been raised, I shall hear the Deputy.
Deputy Cosgrave explained that, to his mind, and, I think, to the mind of those members of the House who are members of local authorities, one of the principal bones of contention between local authorities and the Department is very likely to be this question of the conditions of employment under these various schemes, particularly schemes which may be imposed by the Department on local authorities. I was inclined to be a strong supporter of this Bill. That is the reason I wanted to get a clear statement. The Minister certainly has given me a shock. The Minister quite rightly said that in his present Ministerial position he has not had much time in which to get to understand this question of rotational work and its effect upon the unemployed, but he was quite satisfied that it was all right because it satisfied the officials of the Board of Works.
I suggest to the Minister that he should acquaint himself with this problem and with the position that arises from the enforcement of rotational work. I want to suggest to him that he is not only Minister for Local Government but also Minister for Public Health. On the discussion on the Money Resolution the Minister mentioned—I do not know whether he intended it to be taken seriously or not —that one of the reasons why men could not or would not be given a full week's work was because, having been unemployed for a certain time, they were weakened and would not be able to complete a week's work. That is the first time I have heard that excuse in defence of this rotational work either inside or outside this House. I am sure the Minister did not mean that seriously. I hope he did not, but, if he did mean it seriously, and if the Minister is satisfied that the health of the unemployed has been so reduced and their physique so undermined that they would not be capable of completing a full week's work, does the Minister suggest seriously that that health and physique are likely to be built up by the wages which they will get under the rotational scheme? The Minister talks about 30 per cent., and so on. Let us take an actual case. Take two men in any part of the country you like, living side by side, both of them unemployed, both in receipt of unemployment assistance, both of them getting the maximum amount, 14/- a week. One man gets a card from the employment exchange and he is sent out to do, let us say, four days' hard work in a quarry. At the end of the week—or maybe, as it happens with certain local authorities—at the end of three weeks, he gets £1, less 1/5, in other words, he gets 18/7; and the man who does not do any work because he cannot get any work, gets 14/-. That is the sort of scheme that the Government seem to be satisfied is the best that can be provided.
The rotational system is to be applied to the schemes which will be set going under this Bill. There will be huge schemes put into operation, waterworks schemes and other schemes of public utility. Deputy Cosgrave very properly pointed to the return which is likely to be got for the money expended with that system in vogue. Apart from the question of the men employed, is it desirable, in the interest of the work itself, that the men should be changed every three or four days? Just at the time when the men are getting to know the work, getting an idea how it should be done, when they have got their hands in, so to speak, and are able to give the best return, they are summarily dismissed and a new batch of recruits brought in. In these circumstances the Minister expects to get a good return. He may be satisfied with the views of the Board of Works in regard to rotational work, but has he got the views of any employer or body of employers in this country, has he got the views of any local authority, of the unemployed, or any trades union? Will the Minister point to one body representing the employers, the trade unions, or one organisation of the unemployed that has ever given its blessing to the rotational scheme?
I will even go further. I think the system, has been condemned in the most wholesale way by every person concerned with it, by every organisation in this country connected with employment, private or public. Nobody, either, inside or outside the House, so far as I know, has been found to say a good word for it, except the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. I know the Minister is a busy man and he has a big Department to deal with, but I suggest it would be worth his while to make inquiries among those who have practical expetience of this scheme, people who will be in a position to give first-hand information and he will be able to satisfy himself, I am sure, that there is nothing to be said for it. It would seem that you can give a man only four days in two weeks, or eight days in a month. I would prefer if you gave him six days, one full week, in that month, and I believe the man himself and everybody else concerned would prefer that. It is no use saying that it is a help to those who are unemployed to be given the privilege of working on this rotational system or any scheme. It is not a help to them, and it is not looked upon as a help by the unemployed. I think any employer or any representative body of employers, any trades union or group of workers, will be prepared to tell the Minister what I have told him.
I desire to support this amendment, but I do so without any great enthusiasm. I support it for the reason that it appears to limit the powers of the Minister, to some extent, in relation to the suppression of local authorities. It seeks to set, up some sort of inquiry before which the local authority may appear and state their objections to carrying out the work required. I believe that while the rotational system is one very strong objection which the local authority may raise, there is another objection which they might wish to put before the inquiry, and that is that the cost of the work would be too heavy on the ratepayers of the particular area. For that reason, some sort of inquiry, would bo welcome, although I am afraid, constituted in the manner outlined in this amendment, it would hardly be satisfactory.
Mr. Byrne
I should like to know if any representative of the Dublin Corporation has asked the Minister to postpone the Bill in order to give the members of the corporation and their engineers an opportunity of suggesting amendments. I should like to join with the Deputies who have expressed strong objection to the rotational system in Dublin which gives a man only 16 days' work, and God knows when he will get another 16 days. I should like to know whether the corporation or any of its departments was consulted, and if there has been any suggestion of postponing this measure in order to give them an opportunity to submit amendments.
The Deputy is aware, the Bill having now been under discussion for some hours, that it is too late now to suggest a postponement of the Committee Stage.
Mr. Byrne
I merely thought that the corporation might be given an opportunity of discussing the matter and seeking advice from their engineers.
That is a matter that could more properly have been raised at the commencement of Public Business.
I may say that Deputy Doyle did raise this matter with me, but he did not suggest that the Committee Stage should be postponed. It would be rather difficult to do that now. I promised the Deputy that I was prepared to leave the Report Stage over and so give persons an opportunity of making representations or putting in amendments.
Mr. Byrne
Has the Dublin Chamber of Commerce asked for an interview?
Mr. Byrne
Or any other institutions in the city?
Not up to this morning, that I am aware of.
I understand that amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are being discussed together. Amendment No. 14 seeks to give the local authority the right to offer an objection if it is being asked to carry out any scheme of work on terms or under conditions which appear to that local authority to be onerous or unfair. Unless we are going to get away entirely from local government and disarm local authorities in respect of any powers which they have, I cannot see on what grounds the Minister can refuse to accept amendment No. 14. While we go very near banishing local authorities generally by the introduction of the county management system, and depriving popularly-elected local authorities of the functions which, up to- now, they have exercised, and which similar bodies exercise extensively in Britain without any serious dislocation of municipal and other local administration there, I think by the enactment of this measure we are going further.
Under Section 3 the Minister has power to decide the work to be carried out and, no matter how crazy may he the Minister's notions, no matter how ill-advised, he still has power to compel the local authorities to proceed with the work. Amendment No. 13 endeavours to enable the local authority to present its point of view to an independent engineer. I cannot see any legitimate reason why the Minister will not accept it. It ensures that a local authority will have a voice in directing public attention to its position undar any scheme of work that may be proposed. If there is no substance in the objection, it can be overruled by an intelligent engineer. If there is a valid objection to a scheme, a local authority is entitled to direct public attention to that, fact, possibly in such a way as to induce the Minister to abandon the scheme.
Amendment No. 14 seeks to ensure that the local authority will have some say in regard to the terms and conditions undar which the work will be carried out. The Minister may avail of this measure to compel local authorities to apply generally the notorious rotational schemes which are causing so much dissatisfaction up and down the country. The people in the Board of Works, who occasionally, and only occasionally, go through the country, do not hear very much about the views of local authorities and citizens generally on these schemes of rotational employment.
Everybody who is living with his ears open knows perfectly well that up and down the country, as has been stated in the House already, there is strong complaint and there has been complaint for the last two years, in regard to the unsatisfactory scheme of rotational employment—a scheme under which a man is employed for a sufficient period each week just to give him a wage slightly better, and only slightly better, than he would get if he were signing for unemployment assistance benefit at the employment exchange. The Minister's attempt to defend the scheme on the ground that you cannot expect these men to have sufficient strength to work a whole week is an appalling commentary on the promises made to the unemployed in other years. We have now allowed them to reach such a state of deterioration that we dare not ask them to work a whole week lest we put too much of a strain upon them. Before putting forward a contention of that sort, the Minister might well have recourse to some introspection by which he might arrive at some appreciation of the condition into which the unemployed have been allowed to degenerate. Whilst I want to see that a local authority is compelled to carry out progressive work and to see that important schemes are not held up through any caprice on the part of a local authority, at the same time, if we are to preserve the elements of local government in this country, I think we should at least give local authorities an opportunity of saying at a public inquiry why they object to the terms and conditions under which a scheme is being carried out. In that way they will be enabled to focus public attention on the matter and the public will be able to judge whether they are asked to do something which they consider unfair. I think the Minister ought to accept these amendments. They cannot be regarded as imposing an unreasonably onerous obligation on his Department or one that would make administration difficult. The Minister's refusal to accept the amendments can only be interpreted as an indication that he and his Department wish to compel local authorities to carry out schemes of work no matter how unsatisfactory or unfavourable the conditions are.
When I referred, in the course of my observations, to the merits of these two amendments, I did not advert at all to sub-section (3) of Section 3, in which reference is made to Section 72 of the Act of 1925. Under that section, the Minister may hold an inquiry into the affairs of any local authority which he considers has not been doing its duty and, if on investigation the local authority cannot establish a convincing case, the Minister is at liberty to dissolve it. I presume that in practically all cases the percentage of moneys involved, in relation to the expenditure of public authorities, is very much the same, but the Minister mentioned two bodies here the other night—the Dublin Corporation and the Cork Corporation. I presume that one might take either of these bodies as being fairly representative of the country as a whole. The Minister told us that in the case of Dublin, the Department gave a sum of £60,000 for works and that he expected the municipal council to contribute £20,000, which they did. The entire sum involved, therefore, was £80,000. Let us assume that it is double that sum, £160,000, that the Minister wants the council to do that work and the council either refuses, or in the opinion of the Minister fails to do anything that is declared by the section to be the duty of the local authority.
Normally the municipal council receives and expends something like ten times that amount of money. Its expenditure is in the neighbourhood of £2,000,000. That was their responsibility before the introduction of this Bill; that was what they were elected for, and if the Minister were not satisfied that they were doing their duty, he could inquire into the matter and decide on the merits of the case whether the council should be dissolved. Now, for something which the council were never elected, and in which a very much smaller sum is involved, the Minister may, without any inquiry, dissolve the local authority. There does not appear to be anything on the face of it to justify that course.
It was in the hope that we might get some middle course which in essence would not restrict the Minister's power and which would not interfere with him in getting work done, that we put down these two amendments. It is the desire of everybody that the relations between the Minister's Department and local authorities should be cordial and helpful, that there should be a spirit of co-operation between them and that they should share the general desire to improve conditions all over the country. Certainly, as far as the local authorities are concerned, as far as one can see, that is their desire. It cannot be said, of course, that they have all the virtues and none of the vices, but nobody who knows anything about the Minister's Department for the last ten years would accuse it of possessing all the virtues and none of the vices. The Department are responsible for shaping the enactments that are going to be the law of the land, and it is our duty to see, as far as in us lies, that such laws are just towards everybody so that they will have general acceptance by the people of the country.
The section as it stands does not appear to be justified by the circumstances. I remember when the original section was introduced here, and indeed long after it passed into law, all the criticism it encountered—talk about bureaucracy and autocracy, about unfairness and about the sufferings of the dissolved bodies. At any rate, they were tried on their merits, and were given a fair chance of making their case before being dissolved. Here no such opportunity is afforded them. Not only that, but they are going to be wiped out now, not for any failure to discharge the duties which they were elected to perform, but because they will not fall in with the present scheme. As I have said, a scheme to extend the rotational system could not commend itself to anybody outside the institution which has been mentioned here. It would not even commend itself to anybody in that institution, except so far as official pronouncements are concerned.
I should like to support the amendments as I think they are very reasonable amendments. They do not interfere with the Minister's powers to such an extent that he need be afraid to accept them. It is worthy of note that almost every Bill introduced by the Local Government Department since the last general election has had for its object the taking away of authority from local councils. I think that is quite apparent to everybody. We have had the County Management Bill, which is now an Act. Under that Bill considerable powers have been taken from local authorities and transferred to managers. That Bill was debated for a considerable time in this House and, during the discussions on the Bill, it was pointed out on various occasions that the local authorities, even after the County Management Bill would become law, would have complete control over all finances.
I suggest that the present Bill takes away that control from local authorities, because any reluctance that a local authority will have to carry out a scheme outlined and directed by the Ministry will be dictated by their financial commitments. Therefore, I say that this Bill removes what the Minister contended was retained by the local authorities under the County Management Act. Surely a local authority, elected by the people in the same manner as we were elected, are entitled to have some point of view in so far as schemes visualised by the Minister are concerned. If they think that it is not wise in the interests of the people whom they represent in a particular area that a certain scheme should be put into operation, that it would cost the local ratepayers too much, surely they are entitled to have an inquiry held and let the people whom they represent know, through the medium of a public inquiry, why they did not put into operation a scheme which they were directed to put into operation by the Government.
With regard to rotational employment, that matter has been debated here repeatedly. The Minister put forward to-day a very novel reason for the continuance of rotational employment when he stated that it is because of the fact that men who have been idle for a long time would not be equal to the strain which would be placed upon them if they were given a week's work instead of three days' work. I suggest that the reason very definitely is that the Ministry are able to get two stamps for a week's work under rotational employment, instead of one stamp if men were given a full week's work. The Minister stated that under the three days' scheme the greatest good was done to the greatest number. Again, I contest that, because for every new scheme, of rotational work which starts, even though there are two or three schemes inside a period of six months, the men are taken from the top of the list, and the list is very seldom exhausted in any area in any part of the country. Therefore, it is nonsense to say that the greatest good is done to the greatest number under the rotational scheme. It is a scheme, as various Deputies pointed out, which has been condemned by employers, workers and local authorities, indeed by everybody. It would he interesting if a Government inquiry was set up to get the views of the people interested in that matter, the people who have to pay the piper, and the workers who are employed. It would be very interesting if an inquiry were held into the workings of the rotational system. I am sure the Minister's eyes would be opened and that he would have to find some other excuse for keeping it in operation any longer.
I will not go into the question of the rotational scheme, as you, Sir, have ruled that it is not relevant. With regard to the point raised by Deputy Cosgrave about the power to abolish local authorities without any inquiry, this is an emergency measure. It is a measure proposed to this House to deal with an emergency situation, and it will only remain in existence for two years after that emergency has passed, that is, in order to complete any schemes that may have been undertaken before that. Under this Bill certain statutory duties are being cast on local authorities. This is an emergency measure and the Act of 1925 was of a permanent character and not arising out of an emergency. I do not expect that under this Bill there will be any abolition of local authorities—I hope there will not, and I do not see any necessity for it.
What I expect under this Bill is that schemes will come up from the local authorities themselves and that it is on their recommendation the Minister and the Department will act; that they will be the initiators of schemes and put them forward. The Department will not go down to Kerry or even to Kildare or other places except to get information when there is something very necessary that is not being undertaken by the local authority; in other words, that the local authority are not doing the job they were elected to do. I do not think you will have any intermeddling by the Local Government Department. Incidentally I may say that I always regret when suspicion is cast on local government officials. I think they are doing their best in a difficult situation and doing their job very well. Also, I do not like to see people attacked who cannot defend themselves. That is how I hope this Bill will work—that the initiation of the schemes will come almost entirely from local bodies who are anxious to put up good, constructive and planned schemes, and that when the schemes are put before the Department they will be sanctioned and the necessary grant allocated. I do not see that there is anything to be alarmed about, that there will be wholesale wiping out of councils. It is not true to say that the managerial system was started since the last election. The managerial system was started a good many years ago in a small way and developed from various county boroughs. It was only to bring the managerial system into line with the county boroughs that the County Management Act was passed.
If a local authority refuses to employ men except for a week's work under a rotational scheme will they still get the grant?
Amendment No. 13 put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 38; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Bennett, George C.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John A.
- Davin, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Cole, John J.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moylan, Seán.
- 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.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett, Níl: Deputies Smith and Seán Brady.
Amendment declared lost.
I take it that the decision on amendment No. 13 governs amendment No. 14.
Yes; I presume the Minister will not accept it.
Question proposed: "That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On the section, Sir, I want to ask the Minister a question. Everywhere in this section that a local authority is referred to, it is referred to as if the local authority concerned were going to carry out this work, and I take it that, in the main, that will be so; but is there anything to prevent a private contractor, where he has specialised plant or some peculiar advantage, from carrying out work of the kind that is carried out by a private contractor? In other words, can it be done by a private contractor?
Only under a local authority.
I see. It would be only as a sub-contractor?
It is the usual phraseology.
I understand that the main object of this section is to enable the Minister to suppress any local authority which fails to carry out any works that he may think desirable. The Minister expressed the hope that works will be initiated by local authorities, but in the Bill there is a definite provision that the Minister may initiate such works, and a previous sub-section gives him power to certify works which, in his opinion, will relieve unemployment. That power is altogether too far reaching, because, it means, in effect, that if he thinks it necessary, the Minister can compel a local authority to undertake work which may have the effect of increasing the rates in a county by 50 per cent. The Minister could certify that the improvement of county roads is work for the relief of unemployment and might order that they should be widened or resurfaced. That is possible under the section, and, if it happened, a crushing burden might be imposed upon a local authority. In amendments it was sought to give local authorities an opportunity of stating their case against having certain works certified, and of being suppressed if they failed to carry them out. As the amendments were defeated the Minister has thereby deprived local authorities of all power of stating their case.
The lowest criminal in this State has the right to appear before a tribunal if he is accused of any offence, but under this Bill local authorities are being treated worse than the lowest criminal. There is no appeal to any tribunal. They are simply going to be wiped out if they fail to carry out works which may result in injustice to the ratepayers. I believe the effect of this section will be to put an end for all time to local government, because no body of decent citizens will be prepared to act upon local bodies under the conditions imposed upon them by the Bill. In the present state of the country I think this section a criminal one in as much as it inflicts an injustice on local authorities and the people they represent. At a later stage the Minister should devise some means of improving or amending the section. It may be stated, and probably will be stated by the Minister, that the State is making a contribution to certain works, which may be denned under the Bill as works of utility, but the fact remains that the State will not be contributing to all the works that local authorities may be compelled to undertake.
As the law stands the State contributes very little towards the maintenance and improvement of county roads, and the improvement of these roads will undoubtedly suggest itself to the Department as a means of relieving unemployment. The Minister cannot be described as being impartial when it is a question of choosing between works towards which the State will contribute part of the cost and works where local authorities will have to bear the entire amount. We can rest assured that the Minister will select a type of work of which local ratepayers will have to bear the entire cost. For that reason I am against this section, as I believe it is inflicting a grave injustice upon local authorities.
In moving the Second Reading of the Bill the Minister gave me the impression that it was brought forward for the purpose of making some attempt to find a solution of the unemployment problem, as well as carrying out useful and necessary works. He certainly gave me the impression that plans for carrying out euch works were being prepared, if they were not already prepared, by his Department, but when he spoke prior to the recent Division he surprised me by his suggestion that the schemes to be carried out under this measure would have to be initiated by local authorities. I wonder what is the position? A rising out of that statement, and on the assumption that it will be the duty of local authorities to initiate schemes, may I ask if, in the preparation and presentation of schemes to the Department, the local authorities express the opinion that it should be part and parcel of these schemes to provide six days' work for the men employed, will the Department sanction such a proposal?
If, on the other hand, the Local Government Department refuse to sanction that proposal and the local authority still maintains the right—as I believe they have a right, seeing that they will have the responsibility of paying portion of the cost—and insist on making it a condition of the carrying out of this scheme that the workers will be paid a full week's work, will that be a good cause for the Minister for Local Government to abolish the local authority concerned? I want an answer to that question.
I thought at the outset that references to rotational schemes were quite irrelevant, but admit now that there was some justification for them. However, the Deputy would scarcely feel justified in reopening that question a third time on the same measure.
I want the Minister to answer now.
Would not a reply, whether negative or affirmative, raise the question again?
I do not wish to evoke a discussion, but "yes" or "no" will satisfy me.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 4.
(1) Where—
(a) a certified work consists of the construction of a new road or the improvement of an existing road or partly of such construction and partly of such improvement, and
(b) the local authority which is the executing authority in respect of such work is not charged, by virtue of Section 24 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), with the construction and maintenance of such road (whether new or existing or partly new and partly existing) or is charged by virtue of the said section with the construction and maintenance of a portion or portions only of such road,
the Minister, if he so thinks proper, may by order transfer to the said executing authority from the council charged by virtue of the said Section 24 with the construction and maintenance of such road or of the portion or portions thereof witli the construction and maintenance whereof the said executing authority is not charged as aforesaid (as the case-may be) all the powers and duties of the said council under the said Section 24 or any other enactment in relation to the construction and maintenance of such road or the said portion or portions thereof, as the case may be.
(4) Any expenses incurred by the corporation of a county or other borough, or the council of a county or of an urban district to whom powers and duties in relation to any road are transferred by order under this section in the exercise and performance of such powers and duties shall be raised and charged as if such road were situate in such county or other borough, or county or urban district, as the case may be.
I move amendment No. 15:—
To delete sub-section (1), page 3, and to substitute a new sub-section as follows:—
(1) Whenever the Minister is of opinion that, for the purpose of providing employment for unemployed persons, it is expedient that a particular work of public utility consisting of the construction of a new road or the improvement of an existing road or partly of such construction and partly of such improvement should be undertaken and executed by a local authority which is not charged by virtue of Section 24 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), with the construction and maintenance of such road (whether new or existing or partly new and partly existing) or is charged by virtue of the said section with the construction of a portion or portions only of such road, the Minister may, subject to the limitation imposed by this section and after consultation with snch local authority and with the council charged by virtue of the said Section 24 with the construction and maintenance of such road or of the portion or portions thereof with the construction and maintenance of which such local authority is not charged as aforesaid (as the case may be), by order transfer to such local authority from the said council all the powers and duties of the said council under the said Section 24 or any other enactment in relation to the construction and maintenance of such road or the said portion or portions thereof, as the case may be.
This amendment proposes to recast the provisions of Section 4, sub-section (1). The only difference between this and the section as it stands in the Bill is that it provides for previous consultation between the two bodies concerned. That is, where one local authority wants to do a work in an adjacent local authority's area, the Minister shall provide for consultation with the two local authorities before determining who is to be the executing authority.
That will be the deciding factor.
It is an improvement on the section in the Bill.
I put before the Minister the point of view of the construction of the amendment. I take it that the object of the amendment is to transfer to a local authority who is not at the present time in charge of the maintenance of a particular road, the maintenance of that particular road and to do that by giving him the powers and duties under Section 24 of the Local Government Act of 1925. As the Minister is aware, the maintenance of the roads of this country is dealt with in a separate part—Part III—of the Local Government Act of 1925. Section 24 is more concerned with the duties than with the powers of the local authority in relation to roads, and the powers are only to a limited extent dealt with in Section 24. I will give the Minister an instance of what I mean. Take the power to acquire road material and to enter on land for that purpose. That is dealt with in Section 32 of the 1925 Act—also in Part III. Is the Minister of the opinion now, on the construction of that section, that the local authority to whom the charge of these roads is transferred would have power to enter on land and take materials under Section 32 of the 1925 Act? The Minister will see that the particular sentence in question is, "all the powers and duties of the said council under the said Section 24 or any other enactment," which may be interpreted as meaning that the new authority taking over the new right to look after roads could be confined to any statute powers or duties, so far as the Act of 1925 is concerned, referred to in Section 24.
I would like to ask the Minister if he intends to use his power under this section in a case where a corporation or a borough council would formulate a scheme providing for the payment of the local standard rate of wages. Will the Minister use his power to transfer that scheme to the council because of the fact that they pay a much lower rate of wages?
That does not arise on this amendment. As to Deputy Esmonde's point, I understand that it has been decided that "any other enactment" may mean a section and, if that were so, we would have all the powers under that Act. However, I am grateful to the Deputy for raising the matter and will look into it between now and the Report Stage, to see if there is any doubt about it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
If there is any point which the Deputy sees proper to raise on the new sub-section (1) he might raise it on the Report Stage, that, is if his point is not, met by amendment No. 24, to which I presume he has adverted.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
I move amendment No. 18:—
Before sub-section (2), page 3, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) No order, except an amending order under the next following sub-section, shall be made by the Minister under this section after the expiration of two years from the date on which the Emergency Powers Act, 1939 (No. 28 of 1939), ceases to be in force.
This is designed to limit the operation of this section in the same way as the other one, that is, to two years.
Would the Minister say why the words "except an amending order shall be made" have been inserted?
I do not think an amending order could be made to extend the period, as the period is set out in the Bill.
But an order might be made for a certain amount of the work to be done and that order might be amended later to do some more work.
No order could be made to extend the Bill for more than two years after the emergency. That is limited in the Bill.
If the Minister is satisfied, that is all right, but I think it is only the certificate that is limited.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In sub-section (4), page 4, line 10, to insert before the word "situate" the words "a main road, a county road, or an urban road (as the Minister shall direct)".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the section, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Brennan
I should like some clarification of this matter. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 stands unamended. It makes provision for the transferring of certain works from, say, X to Y. Sub-section (4) says that any expenses incurred in relation to any road so transferred will be raised and charged as if such roads were situate in such county or other borough. Suppose the work is situate in X and is transferred by the Minister to Y for the purposes of execution, is Y—the executing authority—to raise the money, if there is money to be raised for the execution of the money in X? It does not confer any benefit on Y as it is situate in X. Nevertheless, Y, as the executing authority, is the only authority that can raise the money, according to the sub-section.
Y surely would not undertake the work unless it would suit work in its own area. It is like the Dublin Corporation in the County of Dublin. The Dublin Corporation may wish to carry out schemes of their own, part of which may be outside the corporation boundary, in the county, and may carry out that work by borrowing or grants.
Mr. Brennan
Agreed. Suppose the Dublin Corporation raise the money by borrowing for this work, situate partly in the County of Dublin, the county conucil apparently cannot raise any money for it under that sub-section, to defray any cost, or make any grant towards it. There is no provision for doing so. The section means that, if the Dublin Corporation is the executive authority, the Dublin Corporation and it alone can raise the money for the purpose of meeting the expenses. That is the way sub-section (4) reads, to my mind.
Look at the other section which deals with the benefiting authority.
Mr. Brennan
Sub-section (3) of this section—that is Section 4—provides:—
Whenever the Minister has made an order under the first sub-section of this section, the powers and duties transferred by such order shall, as on and from the date of such order but subject to any amendment of such order made under the next preceding sub-section of this section, be exerciseable and performed by the local authority to which they are so transferred and by no other authority.
Sub-section (4) provides that any expenses incurred in relation to any work so transferred shall be raised and charged as if such work were situate in such county or other borough, as the case may be.
The Deputy should take Section 5 which deals with the benefiting authority.
Mr. Brennan
But are we not making provision for works which will have an interlocking effect as between two authorities? Consequently, I take it there will be both a benefiting authority and an executing authority, but apparently we are making it compulsory on the executing authority only to raise the money.
It will recover from the benefiting authority.
Mr. Brennan
Mr. Brennan
Are we making any provision for that?
We are making it in Section 5.
Where is that provision made?
In paragraph (d), which provides:—
The amount of any such contribution or instalment of a contribution as is mentioned in the next preceding paragraph of this sub-section shall be raised by means of such rate charged on such area as the Minister shall direct having regard to the manner in and extent to which the performance of the functions of such benefited authority are or will be facilitated or rendered less costly by the said certified work when completed, and all other relevant circumstances.
Mr. Brennan
I am not quite sure that the words in sub-section (4) of Section 4: "raised and charged" will bear the interpretation that the Minister has put on them.
The Deputy has to take with that what is set out in paragraph (d) of Section 5.
Mr. Brennan
I think it would be well if the Minister would examine the wording of sub-section (4) of Section 4, and see that the position is quite certain.
I will look into it, but I think it is all right.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(3)Where—
the next preceding sub-section of this section shall apply and have effect in relation to any costs and expenses other than the cost of the execution of the said certified work incurred by the said executing authority at any time after such transfer in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties so transferred as if such costs and expenses were the cost of the execution of the said certified work and the said council
Amendment No. 20 (Deputy Benson) not moved.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In sub-section (3), page 5, line 6, to insert before the words "the cost", the words "part of".
This is a drafting amendment. It makes it clear that the other expenses, which are part of are not, in fact, the whole cost of execution.
Taking Section 5, it seems to me that there is a great deal in Deputy Brennan's point, because if only the executing authority can raise a rate, as seems to be the case under Section 4, a contributing authority may be ordered by the Minister to raise a rate. But Section 4 would seem to prevent it doing so.
It can only raise a rate for the purpose of making a contribution.
Take the case of two county councils. One of them has to carry out some work. The body that carries out the work is the only one that can raise the rate. That is how I read sub-section (4) of Section 4. Now we come to Section 5. Under that, a body may be ordered bv the Minister to defray part of the expenses: in other words to raise a rate which Section 4 says it shall be illegal for it to raise. It seems to me that Deputy Brennan's point shows that there is a distinct contradiction between the two sections.
The executing authority will raise the rate and then we will come along and get its contribution from the benefiting authority. The benefiting authority naturally has to strike a rate to raise its contribution.
Mr. Brennan
When a local authority strikes a rate, it is confined within very strict legal limits as to what it may strike a rate for. It is doubtful to my mind whether it can strike a rate to make a contribution to another local authority.
The auditor will have something to say about it.
The point is not worth delaying over. I will look into it and see if there is anything in it.
Amendment agreed to.
On behalf of Deputy Cosgrave I move amendment No. 22:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) The maximum additional annual rate charged on an area by virtue of this section shall not exceed fourpence in the pound and the additional rate shall not be struck for a longer period than three separate years.
The amendment more or less speaks for itself. I do not know what view the Minister takes of it. It limits the rate that can be struck to 4d. in the pound.
If there is no objection to a local authority raising money by way of loan, I think the section is clear enough.
The question of a loan does not arise. The amendment says that whatever amount has to be raised by way of a rate shall not exceed 4d. in the pound.
I could not accept an amendment that would put a limit of 4d. in the pound, although I think it is unusual that a rate should amount to that. If a very big expenditure has to be incurred and a loan raised, the usual practice with local authorities is to borrow. I do not think we should limit ourselves to 4d. in the pound.
In the case of certain local authorities, if they had to raise not a very big amount by way of loan, it would mean more than 4d. in the pound on the rates in their areas. I take it that the object of the amendment is to try and clip the Minister's wings so far as the schemes which he may impose on local authorities are concerned. I have in mind one local authority that has a scheme in contemplation. They hope to get it accelerated when this Bill becomes law. If that local authority were to borrow the money necessary to finance the scheme, it would mean an addition to the rates, not of 4d. in the pound, but 1/4.
Mr. Brennan
If you borrow money you have to pay it back, so that the charge falls on the rates in any case.
The three year period mentioned in the amendment would, if accepted, only complicate matters.
I think it is clear from the wording of paragraph (d) of sub-section (2) that the rate may be struck on a very small area. As I read it, an additional rate may be struck on a particular townland, if only the townland is benefiting—that it may be charged on such area as the Minister shall direct. Suppose a county council is carrying out a scheme under the jurisdiction of another county council, it is only the area of the second county council, the non-executive county council, that benefits that is to be charged. What this amendment provides is that nothing higher than 4d. in the pound shall ever be imposed in respect of such charges.
Take a small town carrying out a sewerage scheme. That might involve a rate of 1/- in the pound over a period of 25 years. Under this amendment, that work could not be undertaken.
It might take 30 or 35 years.
This is an obstructive amendment. Whether it is so intended or not, I do not know.
Mr. Morrissey
It is not an obstructive amendment. I am interested in the matter from another angle. A local authority which I know are anxious to proceed with, for them, a big scheme. Allowing for the grants which they will receive, the scheme will involve a charge of about 1/4 in the £ for 30 years for repayment of the loan. The local authority are anxious to take advantage of another section of this Bill for the acquisition of a site for the outfall works of their proposed sewerage scheme. I should like to know, if this amendment be carried, if that local authority or any other local authority similarly situate will be precluded from the benefit of the other section of the Bill.
I should not like to say that.
If such a scheme were carried out, it would be only the town in question which it would benefit. The area through which it would run would not benefit.
That does not always apply. It might benefit two areas.
A waterworks scheme might be extended outside an urban district for the benefit of the people there.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Under this section, a local authority may agree to pay to the local authority Which is the executing authority certain contributions. In sub-section (2) it is stated that "the amount of any such contribution... shall be raised by means of such rate charged on such area". Does that preclude the benefited authority from raising by loan the cost of the work for the executing authority? Is it the Minister's intention to limit the raising of the amount to the striking of a rate?
It can be raised by loan also.
Do the words "raised by means of such rate" permit of the money being raised by loan?
That would depend on whether it was town rate or poor rate.
It would have to be entirely poor rate in one case.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
(1) In this section the expression "the Act" means the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, and every expression used in this section which is also lined in any of the sections of that Act applied by this section has in this section the same meaning as it has in those sections.
(2) Whenever the Minister is of opinion that the formation of a united district is expedient for the purposes of the execution of a certified work, the Minister may by order form any two or more sanitary districts or contributing places into a united district for the purposes of the execution of the said work.
(3) Whenever the Minister has formed a united district under this section, the last paragraph of Section 12 and Sections 13, 14, 235 and 236 of the Act shall (subject to the next following sub-section of this section) apply and have effect in relation to such united district as if that district had been formed under the said Section 12, but subject to the modification that every reference in those sections to the provisional order forming a united district shall be construed and have effect as a reference to the order under this section forming such united district.
(4) Whenever the Minister forms under this section a united district, the Minister if he so thinks proper may, by the order forming such united district,
(a) postpone for a specified period the formation under Section 13 of the Act of a joint board as the governing body of such united district, and
(b) confer on and vest in the local authority which is the executing authority in respect of the certified work for the purposes of which such united district is formed all the powers and duties of such joint board during such postponement.
(5) The Minister may at any time by order amend any order made by him under this section (including an order made under this sub-section) and in particular may by any such amendment extend or reduce the period of postponement mentioned in the next preceding sub-section of this section.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
24. In sub-section (2), page 5, to delete in line 22 the words "certified work" and substitute the words "work of public utility" and to delete in line 23 the word "contributing" and substitute the word "contributory". — (Minister for Local Government and Public Health).
25. In sub-section (3), page 5, to delete in lines 26 and 27 the words "the last paragraph of Section 12 and Sections 13, 14, 235 and 236" and substitute the words "every enactment relating to a united district formed under Section 12"; to delete in line 28 the word "such" and substitute the word "the"; to insert in line 29 before the word "as" the words "formed under this section", and to delete in line 31 the words "those sections" and substitute the words "such enactment".—(Minister for Local Government and Public Health.)
I move amendment No. 26 on behalf of Deputy Cosgrave:—
At the end of sub-section (3), line 33, to add the words "provided that nothing in this section shall operate to qualify a person, who is otherwise or in any way disqualified, to continue as a member of a council or a united district."
I do not know what this amendment means. Deputy Cosgrave might have had in mind members of a united district board. What is proposed in the Bill is the setting up of a united district, the election of the board being postponed.
That is how I understood it. I do not think this amendment has any meaning.
When you do not set up the board, it has no meaning.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendments were agreed to.
27. In sub-section (4), page 5, to delete all words from the word "local" in line 40 to the word "which" in line 42 and to substitute the words "sanitary authority of any one of the sanitary districts wholly or partly included in" and to delete in lines 42 and 43 the words "is formed".—(Minister for Local Government and Public Health.)
28. To add at the and of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(6) No order, except an amending order under the immediately preceding sub-section, shall be made by the Minister under this section after the expiration of two years from the date on which the Emergency Powers Act, 1939 (No. 28 of 1939), ceases to be in force.—(Minister for Local Government and Public Health)
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
Can the Minister say what interpretation will be given to the words "for the purposes of the execution of such work"? The point I want to raise is that, in acquiring land for the construction of a road, it might suit the local authority also to acquire land to a certain depth on either side of the road for development purposes. Would such depth be covered by the words "for the purposes of the execution of such works"?
If they acquired a site for a road, I do not think that they would take a big depth on either side. If they do, they will have to pay compensation.
There is other machinery provided.
On the question of the compulsory acquisition of land, cases have come to my notice where men who had been working on land for years were deprived of employment, on its compulsory acquisition by a, local authority. I do not know whether there is anything in the statutes that compels any person or body or authority to arrange for the re-employment of a man who loses his employment. If there is, I ask the Minister to take special care that the provision is carried out. If there is not, I ask him to consider some arrangement whereby a man who has been some years working on the land will not he deprived of his employment when it is acquired.
I do not follow the Deputy. Does he mean that, where a road is being made through a person's land, the person whose land it is going through is not employed?
Mr. Byrne
No. I refer to the person working on the land. I have a case in mind where land was acquired for housing and the men who had been working on the land were disemployed and are still without employment.
I do not think that housing is visualised by this Bill.
Regarding the acquisition of land outside a local authority's own area for the construction of roads, at present any local authority which has passed the necessary resolution under the Town and Regional Planning Act has control of the frontages along its own roads. I do not know-whether anything could be worked into this Bill whereby a local authority would acquire control of the frontages of a road built outside its area as if it were within its own area for the purpose of the Town and Regional Planning Act.
The executing authority would have to consider that.
They would not have to acquire land for the purpose uf the Town and Regional Planning Act. They would have control of it for planning purposes without acquiring it.
They would not have control if it were outside their own area.
No, they would not, unless they took powers.
The principal point mentioned by the Minister was certain ring roads. These roads may be partly in the city and partly in the county, and it would seem to be proper that, where the corporation controls the frontage of these roads within its own area, if there was a small portion which passed out of its area and in again, it should also have control over the frontage on that portion. It would be anomalous if control were exercised over two portions and not over another, which might, in effect, ruin the whole scheme.
So far as planning is concerned, there is that danger certainly, that two bodies might be planning, differently.
Apart from that, an urban authority would usually adopt the Planning Act and a rural authority does not.
It is a matter to be borne in mind. I do not know that we could amend it in this Bill.
The Minister will consider it before the next Stage?
Question put and agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
The occupier or any person having an estate or interest in or right over the land to which a preliminary order relates may, not later than fourteen days or, if there is an occupied building on the land, twenty-eight days after the making of such order apply to the Minister for the annulment of such older, and, on such application the Minister may at his discretion either annul such order or restrict the application of such order to portion of the land to which it originally related.
I move amendment No. 29:—
In page 6, line 27, to delete the word "fourteen" and to substitute therefor the word "twenty-one".
This amendment merely gives a person interested in land a longer period for making his objection by extending the period from 14 to 21 days. A matter of very great importance is involved and a man requires a little time-to consider his position.
Would the Deputy accept my amendment No. 30 instead? It gives a little more time, although not as much as the Deputy suggests.
Would the Minister not accept the 21 days? Fourteen days seems to me to be very short.
Very well; I will accept the 21 days.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In page 6, line 28, to delete the word "making" and substitute the word "posting", and before the word "apply" to insert the words "on or near the land to which such order relates".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
(2) Where a local authority, before-making a vesting order, become aware that the land to be acquired by such order is subject (whether alone or in conjunction with other land) to any annuity or other payment to the Irish Land Commission, or to any charge for estate duty or succession duty payable to the Revenue Commissioners on the death of any person, such local authority shall forthwith inform the Irish Land Commission or the Revenue Commissioners (as the case may be) of the intention to make such order.
(3) Whenever a local authority makes a vesting order, they shall within seven days after making such order—
(a) post a copy of such order on or near the land acquired by such order, and
(b) give a copy of such order to the occupier (if any) of such land and to every (if any) person having an estate or interest in or right over such land whose existence and name and the address at which he ordinarily resides can be ascertained by such local authority by reasonable inquiries.
I move amendment No. 31:—
In sub-section (2), page 6, line 43, to delete the word "become" and substitute therefor the word "becomes".
I brought this matter to the notice of the Parliamentary draftsman. He prefers the use of the plural. There is in that department a particular method of drafting with which I do not like to interfere. There are one or two other similar cases, and I suggest that the Deputy should withdraw his amendment and I will have it submitted to the draftsman again before report.
I do not mind whether a local authority is singular or plural. All I ask is that we be consistent. In Section 10, to which I have these amendments, it is plural, while in the first line of Section 11, it is singular.
It does not require amendment here. It can be done in the printer's proof.
It is only a matter of consistency.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 32:—
In sub-section (2), page 6, to insert in line 45 before the words "or to" the words "to any annuity or payment to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland" and to insert in line 48 before the word "or" the words "the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland".
It is necessary to include the Commissioners of Public Works, as well as the Land Commission and the Revenue Commissioners, as there may be some charges on the land by the Commissioners of Public Works.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Every vesting order by which a local authority acquires any land shall be in the prescribed form and shall be expressed and shall operate to vest such land in such local authority in fee simple free from incumbrances and all estates, rights, titles, and interests of whatsoever kind on a specified date not earlier than seven days after the making of such order.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In page 7, line 2, to insert before the words "and shall" the words "shall contain a map or plan of such land".
It is considered necessary that the vesting order should contain a plan of the land.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:—
To add a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the immediately preceding sub-section of this section, where a local authority has acquired by a vesting order land which is subject, either alone or in conjunction with other land, to a purchase annuity, payment in lieu of rent, or other annual sum (not being merely a, rent under a contract of tenancy) payable to the Irish Land Commission, such local authority shall become and be liable, as from the date on which such land is vested in them by such vesting order, for the payment to the Irish Land Commission of such annual sum or such portion thereof as shall be apportioned by the Irish Land Commission on such land as if such land had been transferred to such local authority by the owner thereof on that date.
This is to make it clear that the acquisition of land in fee simple does not prejudice the payment of the land purchase annuity.
In other words, you buy the liability along with the land?
Amendment agreed to.
With regard to my amendment No. 36, I am prepared not to move it but to accept the Minister's Section 12 amendment. His amendment and mine are both out to achieve the same object, and I think the Minister's is the better way to do it. The only thing I would say, in passing, is that this is a recommendation for dealing slowly with Bills because a Bill, the Acquisition of Derelict Sites Bill, passed recently without this provision, which is very necessary.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 37:—
Before Section 12 to insert a new section as follows:—
12. Where any land has become vested by means of a vesting order in a local authority, such local authority shall, as soon as may be after the vesting date, send to the registering authority under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, such vesting order, and on receipt thereof the registering authority shall cause the title of such local authority to the ownership of such land in fee-simple to be registered under the said Act.
Suppose it were fee-simple land and there were not already a folio open; suppose it is a question of first rgistration, is this amendment sufficient to carry it?
It may be, but I do not know whether it is sufficient.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 13.
(2) Where a local authority has-made an unconditional offer in writing of any sum as compensation in respect of land acquired under this Act to any person and such offer is not accepted by such person and the sum awarded as compensation to such person by the official arbitrator does not exceed the sum so offered, no interest shall he payable on such compensation under this section during any period after the date of such offer.
I move amendment No. 38:—
In sub-section (2) to delete all the words after the word "offered" in line 35 to the end of the sub-section and substitute therefor the words "the official arbitrator shall decide whether interest shall be payable on such compensation".
The section provides that if a person does not accept the sum offered which the arbitrator holds is sufficient, he should not get interest on it. It is very hard for a person to know what is the value of his land, or what the arbitrator will decide, and the suggestion in this amendment is that the arbitrator should have discretion. If he thinks a person was altogether unreasonable, he may make an order withholding interest, but if he thinks that, in all the circumstances of the case, the opposition was not unreasonable, he should be entitled to give the man interest, because interest should go with the principal, and it is really penalising a person because of a mere error of judgment. I suggest that the Minister should accept the amendment which leaves discretion to the arbitrator.
I do not think the arbitrator could manage it that way. It seems to be an encouragement to people to refuse the offers made by local authorities if they think that, by refusing what may be a reasonable price for land to be acquired, they have any chance of getting interest, after holding up the local authority and adopting all sorts of delaying tactics.
They will be earning money without the local authority getting any benefit for it.
It is not very easy for persons to know the value of their land.
Too well they know it when they are dealing with the local authority.
That is just the time they do not know it.
In the Deputy's county I am told there is a good deal of difficulty in getting land.
If land is being acquired for a road it is very hard to know whether you are going to get £20 or £25 an acre for it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 39:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Every sum payable under this section by a local authority as interest on the amount of compensation shall, in default of payment, be recoverable from such local authority as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.
This was raised on the Second Stage. The amendment provides that any payment by a local authority in respect of compensation may be recovered as a simple contract debt. Deputy Cosgrave raised it on his amendment.
It will save the local authority expense.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 40:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Compensation awarded, including interest, may be recovered by the person to whom same is awarded from such local authority in any court of competent jurisdiction as a simple contract debt.
I think amendment No. 39 covers this, but I just want to see if they are quite the same. I think the difference between the two is that the Minister's amendment seems to apply only to interest on the amount of compensation, whereas Deputy Cosgrave's amendment No. 40, which I have moved on his behalf, deals with a compensation award including interest, and provides that both the principal and interest may be recovered as a simple contract debt. Amendment No. 30 admits only of interest being recovered in that way. What is the reason for differentiating between principal and interest in the method of recovery? Will the Minister not accept amendment No. 40?
Then will the Minister tell me the reason? If I may say so, I am afraid the Minister thought amendments Nos. 39 and 40 were the same, and I should like him to consider the matter more carefully.
If the Deputy withdraws the amendment I will look into the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
(3) All moneys received by a local authority, by virtue of the said sections of the Town and Regional Planning Act, 1934 (No. 22 of 1934), applied by this section, as payment for betterment in respect of a certified work executed by such local authority shall be applied by such local authority in or towards the discharge of the expenses incurred in the execution of such work, and the surplus (if any) of such money remaining after discharging such expenses shall be applied in such manner as such local authority shall, with the consent of the Minister, decide.
On behalf of Deputy Cosgrave, I move amendment No. 41:—
In sub-section (3), page 8, line 21, to delete all words after the word "work" to the end of the sub-section.
This deals with the question of betterment. It is taken from the Town and Regional Planning Act. Deputy Cosgrave raised it here on the Second Reading, and said that where the executing authority got more than the work actually cost, the money should go to the person from whom the land was acquired. The position is that the person from whom the land was acquired retains up to 25 per cent. of the betterment. Deputy Cosgrave wanted to argue that he should get any additional over that if there is a surplus for the executing authority. That seems unreasonable. He does pretty well, in any case, when he gets up to 25 per cent.
As far as my examination of the Town Planning Act is concerned, I think the person whose property underwent a scheme of betterment was chargeable only with three-fourths of the cost. As this sub-section is drawn, a person may be called upon to be liable for a sum in excess of the cost of improving the place, and it was anticipated that there may be a surplus. It seems difficult in understand how there ran be a surplus when the person is chargeable with only three-fourths of whatever improvement has taken place. To that extent, I think it will complicate the administration of this particular section if that is allowed to remain in.
On the rare occasion on which it might occur—in fact I am informed that it may never occur— would it not be only just that the local authority should benefit?
Benefit to what extent? To an extent over and above what they had expended? Perhaps the Minister would tell us who in this country will pay anybody in excess of the cost of the services done—far in excess of the cost?
I can assure the Deputy that I am only trying to keep in line with the Town and Regional Planning Bill. It is the only thing I have to go on.
That Act lays if down that a person will be liable only for three-fourths.
We must make some provision for the surplus in the rare and exceptional cases in which it will arise.
I understood it was bad law to provide for the exceptional cases.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put and declared carried.
Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill".
On the section, I raised a point on the Second Reading to which, the Minister did not refer in his reply, and that was as to whether in fact this class of betterment has ever yet been exercised under the Town and Regional Planning Act. It seems to me that, in theory, it is an excellent scheme, and it also seems to me that, in practice, it is a very difficult one to carry out. I presume that the Minister does think it is a practicable scheme, or he would not have incorporated it in this Bill. I just want to know whether there is any practical experience in the matter?
It cannot be claimed until there is a plan in force.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
(1) Where the whole or any part of any land acquired for any purpose under this Act is at any time not required for such purpose by the local authority by whom it was acquired, such local authority may, with the consent of the Minister, either use such land for any other purpose connected with their powers and duties, or, sell or let by public auction or private treaty in one or more lots, such whole or part (as the case may be).
I move amendment No. 42:—
In sub-section (1), line 30, after the word "or" where it first occurs to insert the words:—"offer same to the former owner at the same rateable or acreable price paid to him or, if he is unwilling to repurchase such whole or part, as the case may be,".
As the section stands, any land which has been acquired by the local authority for a particular purpose, and which is not required, has to be sold by public auction or otherwise with the consent of the Minister. I am proposing that in all cases where land which has been acquired is not required, the person from whom it was acquired should have the option of repurchasing it at the price paid by the local authority. That appears to be quite reasonable. We will assume that six acres are taken from somebody, and the local authority finds that it requires only three. It has paid, let us say, six times £x for the land. Under the amendment, the person who formerly owned the land would be entitled to get his three acres back for three times £x. While it is an unwritten rule that a local authority having property to dispose of puts it up for sale and receives tenders for it, it does seem that, in a case where land is taken from an individual for a particular purpose, and then the local authority finds it does not require all the land, it is no great concession to the former owner to offer it to him at the price paid by the local authority.
I could see that in the case where land is taken from a farmer for labourers' cottages, and where there is a surplus, the ground is given back to the farmer, but in connection with cases of the sort which were mentioned by Deputy Benson and others, such as ring roads, if the local authority acquire land in a particular area they are going to add to the amenities of the place and give it a much greater value, and if the local authority, by the works they carry out, increase the value of land, it is very unfair that they should hand it back to the person for what they paid for it. It is for the local authority to let it at the best price they can because it is they who have enhanced and increased the value of the land. It is very different from the case of the farmer and the labourers' cottages.
It so happens that the local authority does not acquire it at the market price. It acquires it at its own price. There is no use in telling me that a man who has property which is acquired gets a fair price from the local authority. He does not. We will assume it was part of a business premises and that a particular site is not needed. It would be, I suppose, an exaggeration to say that the local authority went in under false pretences to get something that they did not require, and cannot use. Are we to take it then that a local authority, in order to make money, will take more than it requires, will improve the place and then put it up for sale and get a far higher price than they paid for it? It does not appear to be just.
I do not think they would be so foolish as to do that.
This is encouraging the local authority to take more than they require. It is really asking the local authority to do so in the instance the Minister gave. It is encouraging local authorities to take more than they require. Under this Bill, according to what the Minister said a few moments ago, they are entitled solely to take laud required for the purpose. If they go on and take land they do not require they ought to give it back.
Will the Minister consider it on the Report Stage?
I will not consider that principle. I do not see that this will encourage the local authority to do that sort of thing, but where a local authority improves the value of a site I think that local authority, or, indirectly, the ratepayers, should benefit from it.
We are looking at two different things. The Minister is assuming that it is going to be a benefit. There may not be. They may acquire it for some purpose, such as putting a sewer through it. There is no improvement there. Why should the person be denied getting it back? I am sure the Minister has some experience of the awards made in respect of property that is acquired. It is acquired at rock-bottom prices. The Minister, having acquired it at that price, wants to sell at the highest possible price.
I think it would be worth more to the man who had it before than to anybody else.
Supposing a new road which had been constructed by the local authority runs through two persons' land, each side will equally benefit, but from one person you have acquired the entire site of the road, and you have acquired more, but he does not benefit any more than the person from whom no land is acquired.
Amendment No. 42 withdrawn?
It is not withdrawn, with great respect.
If they gave it back there could be a claim for betterment, could there not?
Not in all cases. Perhaps in the vast nuijority of cases there would be no betterment whatever. In the ordinary case, where you put a road through a place for the convenience of somebody else, there is no betterment there.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.
Sections. 15 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
I do not move Section 19.
Is the Minister taking it out of the Bill?
I am taking it out of the Bill. It is suggested that putting it there might cause doubts.
Deletion of Section 19 agreed to.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
TITLE.
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."
May I ask the Minister if it is necessary to put in "providing employment for unemployed persons"? All the persons who are unemployed here will not be employed, will they?
In the Title to the Bill?
I will take a note of that.
Question agreed to.
Report Stage ordered for 6th November, 1940.
