Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Nov 1960

Vol. 185 No. 1

Local Government (No. 2) Bill, 1960—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That Section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Donnell

This is a section which, on first reading, appeared to me to be an essential section. I remember on Second Reading stating that I thought that before c.p.o. orders were made, an inquiry should be held presided over, not by an official of the Minister, but by a district justice or a Circuit Court judge as the case might be.

The Minister is bringing in a new section after Section 12. In that section, the Minister provides for entry on to land and says that an officer may enter on land for the purpose of making surveys, etc., and that before doing so, he must give notice. I am referring now to the new section for the purpose of referring back to Section 10. Under the new section, notice must be given to the land owner or occupier of the intention of the agent of the local authority to enter on land for the purpose of making a survey. The owner or occupier has the right, within so many days, to appeal to the district justice to prohibit the entry of the servant or agent of the local authority on the land. It appears from the new section that there is no right of appeal from that.

Again, if permission is granted to enter on land for the purpose of making an inspection, a survey, or for the taking of necessary measurements, unless there is an agreement, the owner or occupier may appeal to the district court where the amount of damages is less than £20 or may appeal to the arbitrator where it is greater. In other words, the courts are being brought in, when we are dealing with the preliminary entry on to the land for the purpose of inspection, but once it has been decided he may enter on the land and once the compensation has been decided, the courts are wiped out completely. An order may be made on evidence tendered to the inspector who, in turn, recommends to the Minister, and in that way we are wiping the courts out completely.

I know that was done when we required land for houses for the working classes, but that was a very serious problem. Land had to be urgently acquired to build those houses and we had to wipe out, if I may so describe it, the red tape. Now, in relation to the building of offices, halls, or municipal buildings, we are putting the land into exactly the same class as land acquired for the housing of the working classes.

I know Dublin has a problem of its own. I am quite satisfied about that. I know Dublin is anxious to procure a site for a municipal building, and I am not quibbling about that, but there are many local authorities outside Dublin. If it is necessary to ensure that Dublin gets a site for a new municipal building, why not let us write that into the Bill? Why not make an exception of Dublin? It would be much better if we wrote Dublin into the Bill. It would not be the first time that was done. That could be done for Dublin if Dublin wants it, but the position in the rest of the country should be left as it stands at the moment.

I noticed that during the debate, on one occasion, Deputy Briscoe said that not only was the Bill necessary in order to procure a site for a new building, but also to procure buildings for the purpose of knocking them down and making new roads. That may be all right in Dublin, but I should like to see it made the exception rather than the rule, and to see a section or an amendment written into the Bill, even at this stage, taking Dublin out of the general run and leaving the acquisition of land for the housing of the working classes under the local authorities as it is today.

As I say, in view of the fact that we are inserting a new section which brings the courts into the preliminary investigation and the fixing of damages caused by the trespass of the preliminary investigators, why not have the same principle in respect of the acquisition of land for purposes other than the housing of the working classes or the procurement of municipal buildings for the city of Dublin?

Mr. Blaney

I listened to Deputy O'Donnell with great attention. Unless I have missed the point he advocated that these are exceptional measures which are required for Dublin and as such should apply only to Dublin. I did not hear any real reason why such powers should not apply in general.

Assuming the Bill became law and that a building was required by the local authority in Dublin or elsewhere that local authority will put forward proposals to the Department of Local Government setting out the reasons why the building should be erected. That will have to be examined in great detail by the Department. If it is agreed in whole or in part that the original proposal for a building should go forward the local authority concerned will be so informed. In turn, they may seek to acquire certain lands for the project for which there is already prior approval on the basis that it is necessary to their well-being and general work-a-day business. If there is objection to the acquisition, an inquiry will be held and as a result the compulsory purchase order may be confirmed for the whole or part of the land about which the inquiry was conducted. Subsequent to the making of the order, and assuming there is still somebody who feels it should not be absolute and that there is any point of law which such party may wish to raise, he may then have recourse to the Court for a final determination on a point of law in regard to the validity or otherwise of the said order.

Deputy O'Donnell opened with the point, confirming his views expressed on an earlier stage, that such inquiry would better be presided over by a member of the Judiciary, a district justice, a judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court or what you will. That suggestion is rather strange, not from the Deputy himself, but coming from his side of the House. We recall that in the not too distant past, when such persons were envisaged as adjudicators in another matter, they were described here as the instrument of a political party.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

This is rubbish.

Mr. Blaney

That did not influence us on this side of the House at that time and neither does it now. It is well worth recalling that the people who would have judges now are the people who once described them as the possible lickspittles of the Fianna Fáil Party. It did not determine the matter then and I do not think it should determine the matter now.

I have heard no cogent reason why this part of the Bill should not apply to all local authorities as is the stated intention. I did hear that since Dublin alone seems to have the problem, we should legislate solely for Dublin and make it an exceptional case. I am not satisfied that that is so. I am inclined to leave it to the House that the matter should stand as it is.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Minister made reference to the Judiciary. I hope he will remember that it was Deputies on this side of the House who protected the Judiciary when the Minister and his Party attempted to tear them down. We are opposed to the section for the reasons ventilated last week. We can understand the introduction into our law of these powers in relation to housing because of its social importance and because of the problem involved. The Cumann na nGaedheal Government of the day provided for these powers under our housing laws.

We are opposed to this mysterious extension of these powers. The justification for this section has not been made clear. I think only one Deputy made a case for it, Deputy Briscoe, and it was a particular one. It referred merely to the problem as it exists in Dublin. Everybody concedes that Deputy Briscoe, Deputy Larkin and other persons interested in local government in Dublin City and to some extent in outer Dublin may have a particular problem. Nobody disputes that. We have urged and I think it is a reasonable suggestion that it would be far better and wiser to provide special powers for Dublin Corporation or any other local authority with a similar problem. That course has been adopted with benefit I think in the past. It is quite wrong, merely because a particular problem faces one or two local authorities, to give these wide powers to every local authority in the country. I think it is wrong and we are opposed to it.

We feel that a case has not been made by the Minister to justify this wide extension of power. It is wrong that Deputies should be asked to vote and act in blinkers without having any clear case put before them as to why these additional powers are necessary. The Minister said last week and again now that this does not in fact give any additional powers. That is nonsense and the Minister knows it. This section, if passed, gives to every local authority a convenient and ready means of acquiring any land for any purpose it thinks expedient. That is too wide a power to give to local authorities and for that reason we are opposed to this section. Nothing has been said which convinces us that there is any reason why this section should be passed.

Mr. Carroll

It is true that the members of the Dublin local authority have been anxious to see this Bill go through. I said on an earlier stage I wondered if the power was sweeping enough. The plans of a local authority can be held up by an individual such as an absentee landlord or landlord who is practically inaccessible. The problem that exists in Dublin may arise in some other local authority. The proposal of the local authority must go to the Department of Local Government for sanction and therefore I do not see why there is any fear in the mind of any Deputy.

A legal mind may be able to foresee it in a more analytical manner than I could attempt to examine it, but the necessity is here. It is a burning question and, though it may be a vital one at the moment for Dublin, as one who has travelled through the country and visited the offices of other municipal authorities, I am satisfied the same position may arise in their case at any moment. I do not see any reason why Deputies should not agree to the Bill forthwith. Local authorities may feel they can go ahead with the building of dance halls, but, first of all, they have to get the Minister's sanction to do so and every member of the local authority knows that sanction is not an easy thing to get at any time from the Department of Local Government. In saying that, I am not casting any aspersion on the present holder of the post of Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Larkin

I believe that without this section the Bill could be withdrawn from the House because, in fact, it would be of no real value whatsoever. Deputy O'Donnell has referred to the problem in Dublin. It is true that the problem has existed in Dublin for many years and because of that fact, development in the capital city has, in many instances, been of a somewhat lopsided character. It was relatively easy to obtain possession of sites for housing under the Housing of the Working Classes Act. On many occasions, it has been possible to go ahead with the socially necessary work of housing, but the provision of housing is not the only work of a local authority. The problem of providing reasonably efficient arteries for traffic is becoming increasingly great in the city and, indeed, in other towns throughout the country.

In this connection, one of the problems in Dublin has been the acquisition of ground and, if it is not already a problem in other cities throughout the country, it may well become a problem tomorrow. To deal with the closing of a section of a road, the widening of a street, the widening or closing of a right-of-way under present legislation has given us the experience in Dublin that, in many cases, to take effective action results in delays of six, 12 and 18 months. In some cases, the delay may extend to two years and the public at large suffer because of the provisions in existing legislation.

I hold no brief for city or county managers, but, by and large, elected councils throughout the country are composed of responsible people and I do not see any real danger of their building dance halls as has been suggested. It may well be a good decision for local authorities to take, that is, to provide municipal halls in places where they are badly needed so that citizens can have a place for meetings of various associations, but dance halls are entirely different from that. I believe this section is essential, certainly in so far as Dublin is concerned, if we are to see progress made during the next few years in completing the work of clearing many derelict sites. The problem of acquiring land is not solely connected with the provision of houses. It is also associated with streets, lanes and rights-of-way in order to provide proper carriage ways. In conclusion, I should like to repeat that this section, giving power to local authorities to acquire land under compulsory purchase orders for such purposes, is a good one, particularly for Dublin, though I believe it will also be to the benefit of local authorities throughout the country.

Mr. Blaney

May I again draw attention to Deputy O'Higgins' interpretation of this proposal and to reiterate to the House that Section 10, to which objection is taken, merely substitutes compulsory purchase order procedure for the provisional order procedure that applied to these cases in the past? The intention of this section is that a local authority—apart from the provisions of Section 10— must have power of compulsory acquisition of land for a particular purpose, before it can invoke the procedure provided in this section. I want to make that quite clear, that it confers no new uses for which land may be acquired and it comes back again to what I have said time and time again, that it is merely a question of the procedure to be adopted.

For the sake of those who make the argument that compulsory purchase order procedure is something abhorrent, something that should not be used in the context which we propose it in this Bill, let me say that at present, under other enactments of this House, a sanitary authority, a fire brigade authority, a housing authority, a public assistance authority, a mental hospital authority and a health authority may use compulsory purchase order powers for office purposes. which is what we are talking about at the moment in so far as this Bill is concerned.

May I point out further that not only may all these bodies use compulsory purchase order powers for acquiring land for office purposes but the last four—the health authority, the mental hospital authority, the public assistance authority and the housing authority—may use compulsory purchase order procedure in their acquiring of lands that may be needed for office buildings in the course of their work. I fail to see how one can object to the extension of the C.P.O. procedure to cover office buildings and multiple buildings for all local authorities. We must remember that the Provisional Order procedure did not meet all cases in the past. The safeguards in existence in regard to the C.P.O. procedure are adequate and have been found so in all instances in the past under the other authorities I have mentioned.

Deputy O'Higgins struck the nail on the head when he said this was an efficient and ready method, though I think he was complaining it was too efficient. Is there anything wrong with it being an efficient and ready way of doing a job that requires to be done? Is it not much better that it should be so and that we should have proper safeguards, rather than having local authorities bogged down as Dublin Corporation and Cork County Council were bogged down in the past because they had not an efficient and ready procedure to go ahead with much needed building for their use in their functional areas?

Although Dublin is regarded as the real reason for this Bill, it was the experience of Cork County Council that originally gave rise to the Bill, followed up quickly, and with much greater emphasis, by the difficulties of Dublin Corporation. Deputies might be interested to know that Cork County Council actually asked for a C.P.O. which could not be given to them, and they had to do as best they could and look for acquisition by agreement. I know that in my own county there have been rumblings for a number of years. For instance, Letterkenny Urban Council felt that much good could be done and much greater efficiency brought about if they were allowed erect a building in the town to house all their various staffs and, indeed, to be used for other purposes of benefit to the town and the community as a whole. It is not merely a question of meeting a problem in Dublin city alone. It is a problem that has arisen on a number of occasions in the past and which will arise in the future. The safeguards are there. They have been tried in the past and found suitable, and I cannot see why there should be this furore in the House against giving this power to all local authorities, who are, in my experience, responsible bodies.

Mr. O'Donnell

When the power of compulsory acquisition was given under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, away back before 1930, we must remember that the local authorities consisted entirely of property owners and ratepayers. The franchise for local authorities had not been extended to the adult population but was confined to local ratepayers and property owners. These gentlemen were then given the opportunity of acquiring their own land, the land belonging to a class of which they were members. The Legislature was satisfied that they would not exercise these compulsory powers except where absolutely necessary.

I agree with the Minister that most local authorities to-day are composed of reasonable men, but some of them are not property owners and ratepayers. They may not have the same respect for compulsory acquisition as ratepayers would. In the case of compulsory acquisition previously the owner of the property was tried by his peers, but here it is quite possible that we may have—we should always legislate with our eye on the exception —a local authority wishing to acquire for such purposes as, say, the building of a dance hall and we may find a Minister prepared to sanction such a compulsory purchase order.

It is most peculiar that not one Deputy, with the exception of the representatives of the city of Dublin, has spoken in favour of the section. Apart from those from rural Ireland who have spoken against the section, not a representative from Cork city, Galway city, Limerick city and no person from rural Ireland—not even the representatives from the town which the Minister himself mentioned, Letterkenny—has said——

Mr. Blaney

I would speak for that town naturally.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister would, but there are other Deputies here as well.

Mr. Blaney

I am surprised about them.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister is only one of four.

Mr. Blaney

I certainly can speak for them before the Deputy.

Mr. O'Donnell

He is also the Minister in charge of the Bill, whose duty it is to try to pilot it through the House. I can appreciate his position as a Minister. I have heard no Deputy from rural Ireland say he is anxious for compulsory acquisition. There would be no difficulty whatsoever about this section were we to limit it to the city of Dublin, or as somebody suggested, greater Dublin. We would all accept it then. We know they have a problem in Dublin and there is difficulty in solving it. However, I can visualise some of the uneconomic holdings in my county and the local authority deciding to step in and acquire possibly the only valuable site on a holding for the purpose of erecting a courthouse or a fire station. That site could be acquired by negotiation, which is much better than acquisition by compulsion. But there is a problem in Dublin and I know they can never acquire there by agreement. By that I mean acquire property which they want to provide the amenity which they say they require. Let us confine this section to Dublin. If we do so, no one will object to it. I would ask the House to consider seriously my suggestion in that respect.

Mr. Blaney

Are we really expected to take seriously Deputy O'Donnell's suggestion that we might refer back to the time when only those who had the material goods in this country were entitled to vote? I do not think it was really his intention that we should logically draw that conclusion——

Mr. O'Donnell

That was not the suggestion.

Mr. Blaney

I sincerely hope not, and I do not really think the Deputy meant it in that sense. Nevertheless, the suggestion was used as an argument and advanced, elaborated and extended still further in the sense that only the ratepayers could represent the local authority as elected representatives. When something was absolutely vitally necessary, it was only because they were ratepayers, because they were concerned, that there was agreement given or reached on the acquisition of any land for any purpose. It has been said that the comparison with today is that there are on the smaller local authorities some people who are neither property-owners nor ratepayers. I do not dispute that, but what is to be drawn from that? Are we to say that because they are neither ratepayers nor property owners as such, although they were elected by popular choice of the people whom they represent, their voice should not be heard, that they are not in a position to judge issues as they are not ratepayers and do not own much of the world's goods and that they have no conception of what is for the general public good? In fact, it is very often the case—and I think it is true generally—that those who have not a great deal of the world's goods are, by virtue of that fact, in a much better position to appreciate what is for the public good than those who have everything provided for them because of their wealth.

It would be a sad thing that we should regard non-ratepayers and non-property owners who are members of a council as not being the type fit to control and run a local authority and not able to tell right from wrong, as it were, people who would not recognise what is for the good of the community, people not capable of weighing up the rights of the individual against the rights of the community.

I think we should stay very far away from that aspect of things and now that we have got away from it, we should not use it here as an experimental argument, as it were, to divorce the powers in this Bill and give them only to Dublin, whereas they can be, and have been, sought in other parts of the country. Indeed, in the first instance, this was raised not by an actual proposal in the Dublin Corporation but by a proposal from Cork County Council.

It has also been commented on that no speakers other than those from Dublin have spoken in favour of this Bill. It is noteworthy that in the case of any Bill that meets with approval there is less likelihood of those who approve speaking than those who disapprove. It is not to be taken—nor does it follow—that if you have a barrage of criticism on any measure here, when only criticism has been heard, and when it is greater in volume and lengthier than the approval, that there is nobody else in the House in favour of that Bill or that we can say if three spoke against it and if nobody spoke for it, that the House rejected it by a majority of three to one.

That would be an entirely erroneous conclusion to arrive at on any measure and I certainly feel it would be most erroneous in this case and on this section. Again, let me say that the powers of compulsory acquisition have existed for a considerable time and have been exercisable by four authorities I have already named. No grave hardship has been brought to the notice of the House, to my knowledge, that would take away from the benefit of that procedure. It is the procedure we are concerned with and not the power. The power already exists and if it did not, Section 10 does not give a power that is not already held by the local body concerned in relation to acquiring land. Therefore, the mode of acquisition has been tried and has not been found wanting.

Compulsory acquisition procedure has existed and has been used or is usable by at least four other types of authorities in the country and yet a cry now goes up that because we want to change and give the same procedure to our local authorities, elected bodies of our people throughout the country, we are doing something wrong.

Complaint is actually made of the connection between the building of a dance-hall and the acquisition of a small-holder's farm or part of his farm. I need not say that the question of building dance-halls, as such, does not arise on this Bill. No power is being conveyed to any local authority to build a dance-hall, as such, in any part of its functional area. Furthermore, how does it happen that compulsory purchase order procedure which has operated quite extensively throughout the country, including the rural parts, in regard to housing has never resulted in the large number that one might expect from what Deputy O'Donnell said of small holders being evicted from their holdings or having their holdings reduced to such a small size that they could no longer exist on them?

I am not aware of any such development in regard to housing which naturally operates on a much bigger scale. Housing development has taken place more often and to a greater extent and more land was acquired in connection with it than could ever be anticipated as being necessary for the purposes we are discussing to-night. The idea of linking the building of a dance-hall and the eviction—almost— of a smallholder by a local authority is so farcical that I do not think it requires any further comment from me.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 36.

Tá

• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carroll, James.
• Casey, Seán.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Collins, James J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Norton, William.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Toole, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Spring, Dan.
• Teehan, Patrick J.
• Tierney, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Tully, John.

Níl

• Beirne, John.
• Belton, Jack.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Burke, James.
• Coburn, George.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan D.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Dillon, James M.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hogan, Bridget.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, William.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rogers, Patrick J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Wycherley, Florence.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman: Níl, Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty.

Question declared carried.

Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 6:—

Before Section 13 to insert the following new section:

13.—(1) An officer or agent of a local authority who is duly authorised in that behalf by the authority may, subject to the provisions of this section, enter on any land at all reasonable times between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. for the purpose of ascertaining whether the land is or is not suitable for acquisition by the authority.

(2) A person entering on land under this section may do thereon all things reasonably necessary for the purpose for which the entry is made and, in particular, may survey, make plans, take levels, make excavations, and examine the depth and nature of the subsoil.

(3) Before a person enters under this section on any land, the local authority on whose authority the entry is proposed to be made shall either obtain the consent (in the case of occupied land) of the occupier or (in the case of unoccupied land) the owner or shall give to the owner or occupier (as the case may be) not less than fourteen days' notice in writing of the intention to make the entry.

(4) A person to whom a notice of intention to enter on land has been given under this section by a local authority may, not later than fourteen days after the giving of such notice, apply, on notice to such local authority, to the justice of the District Court having jurisdiction in the district in which the land is situate for an order prohibiting the entry, and, upon the hearing of the application, the justice may, if he so thinks proper, either wholly prohibit the entry or specify conditions to be observed by the person making the entry.

(5) Where a justice of the District Court prohibits under this section a proposed entry on land, it shall not be lawful for any person to enter under this section on the land, and where a justice of the District Court specifies under this section conditions to be observed by persons entering on land, every person who enters under this section on the land shall observe the conditions so specified.

(6) A person who suffers damage by anything done under this section on any land and, within one month after such thing is done, makes to the local authority on whose authority the land was entered under this section a claim for compensation in respect of the damage shall be entitled to be paid by the authority reasonable compensation for the damage and, in default of being paid such compensation when the amount thereof has been agreed upon or has been determined under this section, to recover it from the authority in any court of competent jurisdiction as a simple contract debt.

(7) In default of agreement, the amount of any compensation payable by a local authority under this section shall, if the amount claimed in respect thereof does not exceed twenty pounds, be determined by the District Court or, in any other case, be determined by arbitration under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919 (as amended by subsequent enactments) as if the compensation were the price of land compulsorily acquired.

(8) Every person who, by act or omission, obstructs an officer or agent of a local authority in the lawful exercise of the powers conferred by this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding one pound for every day on which the offence is continued.

Mr. O'Donnell

This is a very lengthy amendment and one which in my opinion commends itself, or should commend itself, to the House. I am very glad indeed to see that the Minister has taken the steps which he has taken in this amendment to ensure that officials or agents of local authorities will act with propriety when they enter lands to inspect them for compulsory acquisition. I think that is a very good thing. There are eight subsections in the amendment. The first subsection sets out that an officer or agent of a local authority may enter the lands. The local authorities could not make up their minds to apply for a Compulsory Purchase Order until they had inspected the lands and it is an essential amendment. The second subsection enables them not only to enter the land but to make a survey which is essential and which is helpful at a later time when it comes to an inquiry, if one is necessary.

Subsection (3) provides that notice in writing should be given 14 days before they enter the land and that it should be given to the occupier or owner. Subsection (4) is the most important because it gives a dissatisfied owner or occupier of land the right to appeal to the district court before there is entry on to the land. The district justice in his wisdom may make an order prohibiting the agent or servant of the local authority from entering on the land if he is satisfied it would be in the interests of public justice.

I am afraid I must go a little bit further there. We are leaving the sole discretion to the district justice. Local authorities, at the preliminary stages, if they are dissatisfied with the district justice's decision should have the right to appeal to the circuit judge. Remember that a district justice is a gentleman of summary jurisdiction and he may decide summarily that he will not permit the agent or servant of a local authority to enter lands. If he does make such an order that ends the matter and there will be no compulsory purchase order, no further investigation and no inquiry and the land will never be acquired compulsorily. So far as my reading of that subsection goes, we are giving him that power. If the local authorities are dissatisfied we should permit them to appeal to the circuit judge.

Subsection (6) deals with the question of compensation, not compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the land but compensation for any damage which will be done during a preliminary survey. Unfortunately, under subsection (7) we deal the district justice a blow. We say: "Although you may be the deciding authority as to whether we enter the lands or otherwise, when it comes to assessing damages we will give you jurisdiction only up to £20. If the damages exceed £20 the matter must go to arbitration under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act." We should go further than £20 and give the district justice at least the jurisdiction which he has on the civil side of the court, namely £50, and if we give him jurisdiction up to £50 we should give the local authority or the aggrieved person the right to appeal to the circuit court.

In every court of jurisdiction in this country there is a right of appeal to a superior court. We cannot initiate proceedings in the Supreme Court but other than the Supreme Court we have the right of appeal in every court in the State and this is the first place that I know of where we are taking away that right, not only from the aggrieved person but from the local authority. The Minister should look into that matter again and, if he is satisfied that there should be a right of appeal, let him insert a further amendment between now and the Report Stage.

Mr. Larkin

Frankly I am rather confused about this amendment and the various subsections in it. The Bill is for the purpose of enabling local authorities to do certain things. It appears to me—I may not be reading it correctly—that the amendment is providing machinery whereby the purposes of the Bill and the powers of the local authority may be completely vitiated because in the sub-section there are conditions laid down which cover the entry of the local authorities into lands for the purpose of obtaining evidence for submission to a tribunal or body set up by the Minister for Local Government to deal with an application for a compulsory purchase order. One of the matters about which I am not quite clear is whether the word "land" in this amendment refers only to land and not to buildings.

Mr. O'Donnell

Buildings also.

Mr. Larkin

Obviously if it is proposed to introduce machinery, as apparently it is proposed under this Bill, to make it possible for the local authority to utilise compulsory purchase order procedure at their convenience, it appears rather strange that in subsection (1) it says:—

...at all reasonable times between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m.

Take the case of local authorities who are seeking to inspect a building which is inhabited by people who may be out at work all day and are available only after 6 p.m. To limit the right of entry of the local authority in those circumstances would mean that no inspection could be made of the building or part of a building occupied by those people. If no inspection can be made, how can a local authority accumulate evidence for submission to an inspector in a case where a compulsory purchase order is sought?

The restriction to the hours 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. does not impose very serious difficulties but if the right which is given to a district justice in subsection (4), if he thinks proper, to prohibit entry on land, can be exercised by a district justice entirely at his own discretion, in effect, the efforts of a local authority to utilise the machinery of compulsory purchase order may be completely negatived. This subsection gives a district justice authority to prohibit entry for the purpose of survey, for the purpose of preparing a case to be submitted where a compulsory purchase order is sought.

I may be entirely wrong and I should be glad to be so advised, but it appears to me that in their present form these amendments could have the effect of negativing the general value of the Bill.

Under the provisions governing the housing of the working classes, a representative may attend at reasonable times. I do not think that there should be any question that "reasonable time" should be interpreted to mean the convenience of the owner or occupier, but the limitation to specific hours could give an owner of a small property or portion of a property that was affected or liable to be affected by the activities of the local authority the right to say: "You cannot come in before 9 a.m. You cannot come in after 6 p.m. I am not available at any other time. Therefore, you cannot come in."

Secondly, the owner or occupier of property might apply to the district Court seeking a prohibition order and, as I read it, if the district justice gives such an order, then, as Deputy O'Donnell mentioned earlier, the efforts of the authority concerned are brought to a complete stop.

I would ask the Minister again to examine this amendment and to say whether 14 days' notice in writing is essential. Is it essential that valuers or architects appointed by a local authority will give 14 days' notice before they call to look at a piece of property or survey land?

These are the matters on which I should like further clarification by the Minister. I refer in particular to the power given to the district justice to prevent a local authority from surveying and thereby prevent the local authority from making a case to the inspector. It is common sense that an inspector appointed by the Minister for Local Government would not entertain an application for a compulsory purchase order submitted to him by a local authority who merely stated in general terms the purpose for which they wanted the order and failed to submit detailed and technical evidence in support of their application. Obviously, the inspector would have to say to them: "Gentlemen, do you not think that you should give me some information on the application you are making before me on this occasion?" I would ask the Minister to deal with that aspect of his amendment.

Mr. Blaney

I shall deal with the section in the order in which it appears, regardless of the order in which the various matters were raised by Deputies. Incidentally, I should say that amendment No. 6 as we now read it, which is given here, is in fact taken from the 1947 Health Act without change.

On subsection (1) of the amending section, Deputy Larkin raised the question of the hours 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. I feel that the hours 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. if one is to choose hours setting some general guide, are reasonable hours during which one might expect to be not too unwelcome in one's visitations to any person's house or premises for the purposes outlined in the Bill.

It is not correct to say that in the case of working people who may be absent during the hours 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., you cannot enter before 9 a.m. or after 6 p.m. If the hours between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. are not found to be suitable by the occupier, it would be for the occupier, in reason, to agree to an hour before 9 a.m. or after 6 p.m. I take it that after due notice and consideration, there could be an enforceable examination or entry within the hours 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. if no facility was granted outside the hours. That is the manner in which I think we must regard this and in which we do regard it. It does not inhibit the local authority or its officers in the operation of the Bill as a whole or the intentions of the Bill.

The other subsection that was objected to was subsection (4). The points raised in that connection are quite well taken in that it would appear, if one merely reads the sub-section, that it says that a district justice in the district court would be the absolute determining factor as to whether you could enter land or property or not and, whether it was the local authority or the owner who felt aggrieved, that that was the end of it. But, this subsection must be taken in accordance with general legal usage to mean that any matter that is determined by the district court is subject to appeal to the higher courts.

Mr. O'Donnell

Is the Minister satisfied on that?

Mr. Blaney

Yes, I am.

Mr. O'Donnell

If the Minister is satisfied, I am satisfied, if his legal advisers have said so.

Mr. Blaney

If I were not satisfied, I should be inclined to agree that it should be amended, but I am satisfied from inquiries that it is so.

Mr. O'Donnell

I accept that.

Mr. Blaney

With regard to the other matter mentioned by Deputy O'Donnell—the question of the amount stipulated as that appropriate to be dealt with by the district court or the district justice—I would say that as far as I see it at the moment, it is a matter that I would agree to consider between now and the Report Stage, and possibly raise it up to what might be regarded as a more reasonable limit than the £20. The sum of £50 or something near that might be more in keeping with present day valuations; otherwise, the amendment is as in the 1947 Health Act. It does not have the defects under subsection (1) and subsection (4) about which fears were expressed but I am quite satisfied as far as subsection (7) is concerned. Between now and the Report Stage, I shall give consideration to an amendment of the figure of £20, to bring it up to a more reasonable figure.

Mr. Larkin

Having regard to the fact that the Bill in effect utilises the provisions of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, why is it necessary in regard to the inspection of land or property to depart from the provisions of the Act for that purpose?

Mr. Blaney

Possibly I might answer the Deputy's question this way. Dublin Corporation got representations, which were brought to our attention when the Bill first appeared, and which seemed to suggest that we should apply Section 42 of the Housing Act, 1931, which would, as Deputy Larkin said, be entirely in keeping in so far as the spirit is concerned, but when we came to look at the implications of Section 42, we found that that section is not suitable for two reasons. In the first place, it applies specifically to housing, which rather limits it. Secondly—and this is even more important—it was worded as applying only to cases where a compulsory purchase order had been given; in other words, after the grant rather than before it. While we could not accede to the request of Dublin Corporation for those two stated reasons, we applied this section which, taken all in all, is a pretty fair method of approach, having regard to the private as well as the public interests.

While the question of the 14 days' notice might be said to be in some cases scarcely necessary, on the other hand, I do not think that 14 days' due notice in writing is an undue burden when one considers that we are dealing with something which may arise only once in a century. I am fairly satisfied that the amendment which we are now transcribing from the 1947 Health Act with possibly an amendment of subsection (7), is a reasonable effort to meet both sides of the case.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister has indicated that he will look at subsection (4) between now and Report Stage.

Mr. Blaney

What I said is that I am satisfied——

Mr. Larkin

Subsection (1) says: "enter on any land at all reasonable times between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m." The Minister said if that does not attain its objective, the local authority will be able to enforce entry some other time or is it only between those times?

Mr. Blaney

No, that is not quite correct. It seems to be quite clear that these hours are laid down so that there will not be any undue disturbance of people at unreasonable hours. It is right that such sensible hours should be actually dictated there. If within those hours it is unreasonable in the special circumstances of the person or occupant concerned, then obviously it is he who will have to accommodate the local authority by specifying an hour after or before. You will meet him by agreeing to an hour outside the stated hours.

Mr. O'Donnell

Suppose you were prohibited by law from entering?

Mr. Blaney

What sort of law?

Mr. O'Donnell

Suppose you were going to acquire a public house to knock it down, and it does not open until half-past ten——

Mr. Blaney

You do not have to inspect during the entire hours—particularly in the case of a public house.

Mr. Larkin

In quite a percentage of cases, it is more convenient for the occupier to have the inspection made after the hours mentioned. In that event, it is a question of the convenience of the occupier and not of the local authority. In that event, does subsection (1) permit arrangements being made convenient for the occupier? It appears to me that the section does not, as it is written, make it possible for the local authority to convenience the occupier.

Mr. Blaney

It does not in any way circumscribe any effort in that direction. It merely safeguards people and occupiers from being disturbed at unreasonable hours which would be taken in normal circumstances to be hours other than the hours between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. If an occupier, because of his absence from home, finds he cannot possibly give access to the local authority officers within the specified hours of 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., it is quite obvious that it is he who needs to be facilitated! It will be for him to propose an alternative hour outside the stated hours and unless he suggests the middle of the night, I am sure it will always be possible to find some officer willing to come along and do the inspection in order to facilitate the private individual on whose property he is entering. The section has been taken from the 1947 Act, which is 13 years old. There has been no objection on any grounds such as those which have been raised in this discussion.

Mr. O'Donnell

I took it that it was merely where there was no agreement as to the hour the justice may make an order.

Mr. Larkin

The position still is that the local authority may not go in after six or before nine, even for convenience.

Mr. Blaney

By agreement they can go in at any time.

Mr. Larkin

It does not state that here. It says here: "enter on any land at all reasonable times between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m.". They can enter on any land between these hours. Does it not, therefore, mean they can enter on the lands outside——

Mr. Blaney

That does not follow at all. If I have the right of entry to your premises between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. and it did not suit you, there is nothing to prevent us arranging for me to go in at seven.

Mr. O'Donnell

It does not say "can"; it says "may":

Mr. Blaney

May I ask the members who raised the point on subsection (7) of amendment No. 6 about my considering the raising of the £20 limit as the jurisdiction of the district court to a more equitable figure, whether it would be possible to get the Report Stage, and then, if it is found suitable and necessary, we could introduce an amendment of the figure in the Seanad? It does not really matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the House agrees.

Mr. O'Donnell

If the Minister will give an indication that he will introduce such an amendment——

Mr. Blaney

If the Deputy accepts that we can indicate our change of mind now, would that meet the point?

Mr. O'Donnell

If the Minister would undertake to introduce the amendment in the Seanad——

Mr. Blaney

Could we not agree on the figure now?

Mr. Carroll

I would accept that.

Mr. O'Donnell

Agree on it now? Certainly, I agree.

Mr. Blaney

We could deal with the matter now.

Mr. O'Donnell

£50 is the jurisdiction.

Mr. Blaney

That is the figure that has a certain meaning at the moment.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is the jurisdiction in the civil side of the courts.

Mr. Blaney

I think that figure would be more in keeping with modern values than £20.

Mr. O'Donnell

I agree with that.

Mr. Blaney

I move that the figure be raised to £50.

Mr. O'Donnell

In subsection (7) of amendment 6 to amend the words "twenty pounds" to "fifty pounds".

An Ceann Comhairle

What is the subsection?

Mr. O'Donnell

Subsection 7: to delete £20 and substitute £50.

Mr. Carroll

Agreed.

Amendment amended, by leave, by the substitution of "fifty pounds" for "twenty pounds" in subsection (7).

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Donnell

As I said on Second Reading, I am in agreement with the section. If we are to have the General Council of County Councils we must permit the local authorities to pay increased subscriptions to them. I was not here when the Minister replied but I understand he said that I contradicted myself, that I advocated the increased subscription and, at the same time, advocated the abolition of the General Council of County Councils. So long as we have that General Council we must enable them to function properly and I am, therefore, in favour of the section.

I suggested that the Minister should look into the point of whether this General Council serves any purpose and I am again asking him to look into that point. I accept the section as it stands, but the Minister should consider whether or not the General Council of County Councils serve any purpose and whether they are worth the cost to the local authorities. The Minister might look into the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

At an earlier stage of the debate, the Leader of the Opposition asked that we should look into certain words which were intended to be added under an amendment and find out whether we were satisfied that they did not introduce something new in so far as the powers of the local authorities were concerned in regard to acquisition of land. I looked into that matter—I refer to amendment No. 3——

Mr. O'Donnell

Is it with regard to the wording of a section of the 1898 Act?

Mr. Blaney

It introduces words before the word "offices" in subsection (2) of Section 10, line 38. The amendment introduced the words "halls, buildings and" before the word "offices".

I have looked into the matter since, as I promised the Leader of the Opposition, and I find it does not add something which is unnecessary and neither does it add something which does not already exist.

Mr. O'Donnell

If the Minister states that, we accept his word.

Mr. Blaney

I wanted to put that on record because I promised the Leader of the Opposition that I would look into it and assure the House one way or another.

Bill reported with amendments, received for final consideration and passed.