Vol. 184 No. 8
I move amendment No. 1:—
In subsection (1), page 2, line 27, to insert "(neither or none of whom is the Minister for Local Government)" after "Ministers" where that word occurs firstly.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that where the Minister for Local Government is one of the Ministers concerned, he will be regarded as the appropriate Minister in all cases.
I move amendment No. 2:—
To add to the section the following subsection:
"(3) Lending under this section shall be a reserved function."
The object of this amendment is to provide that lending shall be a reserved function under this section. In other words, it will be subject to the control of the elected representatives of the council rather than a managerial function.
It will be reserved to the council?
In the same way as are all borrowing matters at the moment in all other respects.
They are already similarly reserved under Section 4 of existing legislation.
That is so.
This is bringing Section 5 into line with Section 4.
Yes.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In subsection (2), page 4, line 38, to insert "halls, buildings and" before "offices".
This amendment is intended to clarify the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 10 so that there shall not be any confusion or dispute. A case could arise in which a hall would be included in a building erected as offices and it might be held that a hall contained in a multi-purpose building could not be included under the provisions of this Bill.
Surely, in an effort to avoid confusion, this is going far beyond what the Bill originally intended to do. We now extend the multi-powers of local authorities to acquire land not only for the erection of offices in which to carry on local government but also for halls or buildings—any buildings. Why should a local authority have powers compulsorily to acquire land for the erection of a hall or a building? I see the Minister's difficulty; he says that if a body like Dublin Corporation builds a wide range of offices and it is expedient to provide under the same roof an assembly hall, or something of that kind, he wishes to avoid the possibility of one of the functions of the general range of buildings being debarred owing to some ambiguity in the Bill. That is a case that could be sympathetically considered.
It is quite another proposition, however, to give a local authority in any part of the country power compulsorily to acquire land to erect a hall. Have they power under this to acquire compulsorily land to erect a dance hall? They have. But, if they have, and there are proposals before certain local authorities to build halls which will be primarily dance halls, then it appears to me that the word "buildings" will entitle them to acquire land compulsorily for the erection of any kind of building. Does the House seriously think it desirable to confer on local authorities powers compulsorily to acquire land for any kind of building a county council or other local authority takes it into its head to erect? I do not think they should have any such powers. If I have a desirable site in the middle of the town in which I live and the local authority wants to build any kind of building — I take it "buildings" covers every kind of building—why should the local authority have power to acquire my premises and erect what they want on that site?
Surely the origin of all this legislation was to enable local authorities to provide essential housing accommodation for people in their areas and special powers were provided in order to help local authorities solve an urgent social problem? At first this Bill purported to extend that to the point of allowing local authorities to acquire land on which to build offices for the purpose of the better discharge of its work but now, by amendment, we are allowing an extension of that power for the purpose of a hall or any building. Surely the Minister would need to justify that by something more cogent than the argument he put to the House on the question of ambiguity? Once a local authority has compulsorily acquired premises to accommodate offices for the due discharge of its work, surely the inclusion of an assembly hall in the office buildings will not invalidate the powers conferred by Section 10? I would reluctantly be prepared to agree with that but I think it is going quite far beyond that to extend the powers in the manner outlined in this amendment, on the ground that it is seeking to avoid ambiguity.
I am a little surprised at the Leader of the Opposition making such a speech but I suppose he has not read the debate on the Second Stage of the Bill. It was I on behalf of Dublin Corporation, with the knowledge and consent of the Manager, my colleagues and the law agent, who stated that the word "offices" as it appeared in this Bill, did not give us the full freedom of activity which we need, and I suggested to the Minister that he should incorporate a definition of "offices," which is not something new. It exists in Section 10 of the Local Government Act of 1898. That is how new this idea is.
That is not what is here. I know it is in that Act but that is not what is in the amendment.
It is very easy to stretch the imagination to believe that the elected representatives of a council—if this definition is widened to permit certain developments—will go haywire and open up cinemas and dancehalls all over the place.
Why not adopt the words in the 1898 Act?
I suggested that we wanted a wider definition.
But you are going beyond that.
What is the definition in the 1898 Act? Does the Deputy know of it? Can he quote it? We are contemplating building new civic offices in the city of Dublin and we want to get rid of 26 buildings spread all over the city.
What is all this about?
What is wrong with that?
I do not want to interrupt the Deputy.
I do not mind interruptions because they might help me. We want to build new civic offices and, in designing them, we may have to put in portion of a building which, if you like, might not be classified in court as limited to an office. Therefore, we want to be able to design our building in a manner that we can compulsorily acquire, if necessary, a piece of property adjacent to the site we have for that particular purpose and, at the same time, we do not want to be held up by somebody coming along saying: "In the design for the civic offices there is a room for the councillors to meet which could not be classified as an office." I do not think there need be any worries about a local authority going crazy and abusing this power beyond common sense. Anyway, members of the Opposition should know that in any scheme we propose, we have to submit our plans, costs and everything for sanction to the Department of Local Government before we can proceed. That should be a sufficient safeguard in itself.
Deputy Briscoe has made a case for an amendment entirely different from that before the House. Nobody could quarrel with offices being designed to contain a hall in which the council or local authority could meet, but that is not what this amendment provides. It means that a local authority can go out and acquire land specifically for the purpose of building a hall, notwithstanding that there is not going to be, in or attached to that hall, one square inch of office space. I do not see any reason on earth why local authorities should have compulsory powers to do that.
The desirability of ensuring that an architect's design of local authority office buildings could be prepared in a proper way is a thing that could be achieved by a very simple amendment, but this amendment gives local authorities powers to acquire land for offices and any buildings of any sort, kind or description, not connected with offices in any way, and I see no justification whatever for giving compulsory powers for that.
Deputy Briscoe has suggested that local authorities do not want to be held up, but does he remember it was because Hitler did not want to be held up that the last World War started? That is a very bad argument. A proper definition, a proper drafting in the Bill, would get over any difficulty that might arise in design and would leave the situation in such a way that it would not be open to the abuse that obviously this section, if amended in a manner suggested, would be open to.
May I point out that in the building we envisage there will be accommodation for cars? There may be a couple of sheds provided for that purpose. Could they not be called buildings as distinct from offices? All I want is a sufficiently wide definition to enable us to build proper offices with the necessary accommodation for our purpose.
There is no objection, if it means that an architect can design offices which have with them all such necessary and ancillary facilities required. I object to giving power for compulsory acquisition of land for a hall alone.
I agree with the Deputy on that.
If the line taken by the Deputies were in accordance with the true position, I would be inclined to agree with them. However, I do not agree that their reading of the amendment is correct. As I understand it, and this is my intention, the purpose of inserting the words "halls, buildings and" before the word "offices"—and I think this is the normal procedure in many other such cases—is that the words should be read in the context of the meaning of "offices" in that section. As has been pointed out, all county councils and county borough corporations already have this power under the 1898 Act, but they have it under the provisional order procedure which differs from the compulsory purchase order procedure which we discussed on Second Reading.
One way or the other, it is the Minister for Local Government who will have to decide whether or not particular buildings and offices are in fact for the local authorities' use and are a necessary adjunct to their activities. It merely means that instead of the cumbersome procedure of provisional order we are applying here the C.P.O. procedure. But, as I say, it is the Minister for Local Government who will have to decide whether these halls, offices and other amenities mentioned by Deputy Briscoe, such as car parks and so on, are a necessary and desirable adjunct to enable the local authority the better to carry out their business. That is the context in which the amendment has been brought here and not with a view to giving greater scope to local authorities who might be presumed to take the view that they are entitled to build halls here, there and everywhere.
Instead of the amendment as proposed would the Minister not consider an amendment saying "suitable for the provision of offices which may include halls and other buildings ancillary thereto"? There could not possibly be any argument then.
The only point is that we are in fact using the words used in the 1898 Act, and naturally we are bringing in that set of words now rather than some new set. It all revolves on the question of whether we want to retain the cumbersome procedure of provisional order which in fact this Bill was intended to remove.
The cumbersome procedure is another way of giving the owner of the land more opportunity of enforcing his rights.
We are back to where we started. The Opposition might accept it now. I have the Act of 1898 before me and I am looking at Section 10. Subsection (1) of Section 10 says, amongst other things:
...a county council for the purpose of any of their powers and duties may acquire, purchase, take on lease or exchange any land or any easements or rights over or in land, whether within or without their county, including rights to water, and may acquire, hire, erect and furnish such halls, buildings and offices as they require...
There is nothing new in that.
The Deputy read out "such halls, buildings and offices". What is the reference back to that?
I do not want to go over all that.
Go back to the reference back.
Read the whole story.
I am quoting from the Act of 1898:
Powers of county councils as to acquisition of land or easements. Subsection (1), Section 10. A county council, for the purpose of any of their powers and duties may acquire, purchase, take on lease or exchange any land or any easements or rights over or in land, whether within or without their county, including rights to water, and may acquire, hire, erect and furnish such halls and buildings——
"Such" means they have been mentioned before. Where were they mentioned before?
Let us go on and I shall find out.
Deputy Dillon and Deputy Sweetman have raised a point which fully deserves being looked into. It would appear it is not one that can be determined here on the Committee Stage. I think some of the difficulty might be obviated if the Minister were to be good enough to say he would take another look.
From what Deputy Briscoe has said about the 1898 Act, it would appear that that Act allows a local authority to acquire land for halls, buildings and such offices where they are necessary to carry out any of their purposes or duties. If that clause were to be incorporated in this, I think it would get over the difficulty. If Dublin Corporation need, as undoubtedly they do, a new council chamber and other assembly rooms, that is carrying out the powers and duties of the Corporation. It is for that purpose that Dublin Corporation require the scope of this Bill to be rather wider than originally introduced.
I would rather err on the broad than on the narrow side in relation to this. I think the likelihood of there being an abuse by local authorities, such as providing local dance halls on a commercial basis for making profit in competition with other reputable people, is most unlikely to happen. If the councillors from one particular parish called for a dance hall or a community hall, they would have to convince all their fellow councillors. I do not think that would be likely unless there was to be a hall in every parish in the country, and I cannot see local authorities entering on all that expenditure. At the same time, all the natural caution of councillors will prevent a grave abuse of this sort.
It might be as well if we tidied up the powers being incorporated from the addition of the words of the 1898 Act by restricting this power so that local authorities may use it only in connection with their own powers and duties.
Is it not clear that it appears we are all of one mind? The Minister tells us all he wants to do is to provide that if a local authority acquires property on which to erect offices, if there happens to be an old car park or bicycle park on it, it will not be open to anybody to query the propriety of taking over these appurtenances. If that is the purpose the Minister has in mind there is no difference between us. It becomes merely a question of getting that purpose effectively expressed in the draft.
I feel, and I have heard nothing to dissuade me from my conviction, that subsection (2) if it contains the amendment now proposed will read:
Where—
(a) a local authority consider that any land, whether situated within or outside their functional area, would, if acquired by them, be suitable for the provision of halls, buildings and offices for the local authority..."
I am persuaded that that gives a local authority power compulsorily to acquire by this very Draconian procedure of Section 10 which effectively sets aside the courts of law altogether and enables the Minister to do this virtually by order for the purpose of building a hall.
Deputy Ryan may be convinced that the prospect of a local authority acquiring land to build a dance hall is unthinkable but it is at present in the process of being done by one local authority. But in the circumstances they have to do it by negotiation—buy the land on which to build the hall. There is a long story involved in that which I shall tell Deputy Ryan some time when we have a moment to discuss it but if the local authority had compulsory power—or does any Deputy think any local authority in the country ought to have compulsory power to build a dance hall?
If they are responsible authorities why not?
Why should they?
Because they are going to exercise their powers in a responsible manner.
Does the Deputy think it would be a responsible exercise of power to build a dance hall?
That can be debated.
No, I do not think so. I think a local authority is entitled to have compulsory powers to acquire land for essential services such as building necessary houses or building a hospital——
A community centre?
——buildings which are vital to the community. I think, if they want to go out into wider activities, they should go and buy the land how they please, but they should not have that right against individual property-owners of compulsory acquisition under the exceptionally Draconian powers of Section 10 for such a purpose as building a hall. It may be a good purpose but it is not an urgent, social necessity and it is a matter which can more reasonably be arranged by permitting the local authority to buy a piece of land or a suitable site from a willing vendor. That is the normal procedure and I am prepared to concede—as I think most Deputies are prepared to concede —that where essential, social requirements demand sites and a local authority cannot get them and the need for them is so urgent that the property-owners can almost blackmail the local authority by refusing to sell at anything other than a fantastic price, unless the local authority has compulsory powers the authority will be obliged to pay blackmail. But what local authority can be blackmailed that cannot promptly get a site to build a dance hall? They can simply wait philosophically until the first site comes on the market and in the meantime no serious inconvenience can be created for the public.
We should be careful to preserve that distinction here because so long as we confine the granting of compulsory powers to local authorities—or, indeed, to Government Departments— to really essential purposes, that power will have the general consent and approval of the public. If we start distributing that power to acquire your neighbours property for any purpose, I think a great many people will begin to wonder if such powers should be exercised at all. I am certainly prepared to go on record as saying that I do not think a local authority should have power compulsorily to acquire property to build a dance hall. I think a majority of the Deputies would agree with me.
I am prepared to agree that I do not like the form of the Section 10 but I am also prepared to admit that compulsory power for a local authority to build offices for the due discharge of their work ought to be so drafted that if those offices contain an assembly hall or a car- or cycle-park or public lavatory or any necessary building——
Or a hall for an Ard Fhéis.
Inasmuch as the last Fianna Fáil Ard Fhéis was not so big I should not apprehend excessive expenditure on that project. I would go as far as to assent to a hall large enough to accommodate the last Fianna Fáil Ard Fhéis——
It was a record Ard Fhéis.
If it was, Fianna Fáil are not as strong as I thought they were.
Deputy Ó Briain means a record low.
A hall no larger than would be required to contain the last Ard Fhéis would not be——
It would be a very big one.
——an unreasonable appurtenance to the offices of even the smallest local authority in Ireland. I shall go that far with Deputy Briscoe. Seriously, I think we all agree on what we are aiming at. Perhaps the Minister will look at this again and see if the definition he seeks to provide by his amendment could be made more precise in order accurately to effect what I think is pretty generally accepted as desirable.
There is no question that there is any power contained in this section or in this amendment for the erection of dance halls as such. In fact, a dance hall cannot be erected or even proposed for erection under this section.
Why not?
So far as an assembly hall as part of office buildings—an assembly hall which might be used at times for dancing or other entertainments—is concerned the need for it must be proved before the compulsory power is invoked. If the erection of halls is objected to and if the fear arises that the building of these halls might be irresponsibly undertaken, how are we to satisfy ourselves if that were the case—and I do not think it would be—that offices might not also be built irresponsibly by the same local authorities? Getting back to the section of the 1898 Act, the actual power is there; it is a question of procedure that is really at issue rather than the terms of the section itself or what may be done under the amended section.
There were very much greater powers of quashing proposals under the 1898 Act. It is to get away from those that the Government has brought in this Section 10.
I submit that we are back to the question of procedure as to what could be done under the 1898 Act and the compulsory procedure proposed in this Bill. Otherwise, we are in an entire agreement.
Surely the Minister agrees that under the 1898 Act the High Court has far greater powers of quashing the proposals?
Will the Deputy not go with me so far as to agree that the net issue now is not the words that are being put in by way of amendment but rather the principle as to whether or not the old procedure which, in fact, we are trying to remedy, should be retained or the new procedure enforced?
Surely you are bringing it in for houses but I object to it being brought in for halls.
I do not agree with the Deputy's definition of what the section will mean.
