Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Oct 1965

Vol. 218 No. 2

Labourers Bill, 1965: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Bill is based on sections 97, 98 and 99 of the Housing Bill, 1965 at present before the Dáil. In brief, section 2 of the Bill provides power for a county council to waive the restrictions on mortgaging, charging, subdivision or alienation of a labourer's cottage and plot during the period for the repayment of the annuity. Section 3 enables an annuity to be redeemed, if the council entitled to it think fit, by payment to them of an amount approved by the Minister. I should, perhaps, emphasise at this point that the amount which will be approved under the section will be related to the market value of the relevant interest in the property, rather than to the present value of the annuity calculated on a strictly mathematical basis.

Section 4 provides that if an annuity is redeemed all the provisions of the Labourers Act, 1936, which apply during the repayment period, shall cease to apply. These provisions include a prohibition on the use of the cottage otherwise than for the accommodation of an agricultural labourer and his family, a prohibition on the subdivision, mortgaging or charging of the cottage and a prohibition on the removal from the plot of sand, soil, gravel, etc.

Apart from the desirability of getting these particular provisions enacted soon, the Bill is necessary to ensure that there is no delay in the development of certain mining operations in County Tipperary. Negotiations are going forward, on behalf of the mining company, to provide a sum of 22,000,000 dollars which will be required for the purpose of developing and bringing the mine into production. The parties negotiating for the provision of the capital require, inter alia, that they will get a debenture secured on all the property.

The land held by the company contains a labourer's cottage and plot which the company have bought from the former vested owner. The cottage and plot remain subject to most of the statutory restrictions in the 1936 Act, including the restriction on mortgaging or charging and on the removal of sand, soil, gravel, etc. There is no power under existing legislation to waive these restrictions. A debenture on all the property of the company could, therefore, not be given: and the restriction on the removal of sand, etc., from the plot would also cause difficulties—as would the delay in or waiting for the enactment of the long and complex Housing Bill at present before this House. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be undesirable to have obstacles of this sort in the way of the project—with the very considerable investment and employment which it will bring to the area.

The present Bill, if enacted soon, would enable these difficulties to be overcome without undue delay. The county council could, under section 2, consent to the cottage and plot being mortgaged or charged: and under section 3 they could, if they thought fit, accept a sum approved by the Minister, in redemption of the annuity. When the annuity is redeemed, the cottage and plot would, under section 4, be freed from all the provisions of the 1936 Act and could be dealt with in the same way as any other property.

I should, perhaps, point out at this stage that it is my intention to retain the provisions of the present Bill in the Housing Bill—without, of course, in any way affecting anything done under the present Bill.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Sweetman

There is a convention in this House and a very proper one that, when a Deputy is speaking on a matter in which he has a personal interest, he declares that personal interest to the House. I want to make it quite clear that I am interested in the provisions of this Bill both as a director of the company which is doing the mining down in Tipperary and as the solicitor concerned.

Mr. Corish

The Deputy has three interests.

Mr. Sweetman

I want on their behalf and on my own behalf to express my appreciation of the ready manner in which the Government met the difficulties when I went to the Minister for Local Government and asked him to introduce this Bill. The difficulties that have arisen were accepted and appreciated by the Government and the necessity for speed in the solution of those difficulties is, as the Minister has said, the reason for this Bill and on behalf of those concerned and on my own behalf, I want to express my appreciation for the solution. I gather from the last paragraph in the Minister's speech that what he intends to do when the main Bill becomes law is to include a provision repealing this Bill and re-enact the Bill in its present form, which of course is entirely satisfactory.

I may add that the provisions will not merely assist the mining venture and project down there to which the Minister has referred and to which I will refer in a second, but will also mean that there will be a simpler and cheaper method of vested owners of labourers' cottages getting a re-construction loan. It was for that reason that sections 97, 98 and 99 were originally included by the Minister in the main Housing Bill. The present situation in relation to labourers' cottages, by virtue of which a vested owner of a labourer's cottage is not able to give his cottage to his son, for example, reserving the right of residence for himself and his wife, is a most unsatisfactory one and invariably necessitates quite unnecessary costs of administration after the death of the vested owner. As I read these provisions, after they are enacted a vested owner will be able to transfer the cottage to his son, reserving a right of residence for named members of the family, so that if, for example, the named members are the mother and himself, then on the death of the father and the mother, the title can be cleared quite inexpensively by the mere production to the Land Registry of the certificate of death and the appropriate affidavit of identification. That of course is a development that all of us would wish to have. While section 26 of the Labourers Act was enacted to prevent what I might call trafficking in these houses and perhaps preventing the re-emergence of tied houses I do not think it was then envisaged that it would have the effect of preventing rights of residence and preventing local authorities from giving loans for improvement and extension to the vested owner.

The Bill will enable that, just of course as it is fair to say that sections 97, 98 and 99 of the main Bill likewise provide. The necessity for speed to which the Minister has adverted has arisen because it appears that across a portion of the back of one labourer's garden is the best place for the foundation of the concentrator mill to be erected and in fact it would mean that to erect it anywhere else would involve very substantial additional expenditure. Naturally when there is going to be large expenditure on a concentrator mill, the parties putting up the money, which will also be a substantial addition to the capital inflow to the country, want the security of that expenditure. The capital inflow that will be brought in as a result of this operation is something that certainly in present circumstances the nation as a whole should want and gladly accept.

I do not think it is unfair to say that the mining development which some of us are going to see opened to-morrow—and in this connection I am talking not in respect of any personal interest but strictly as a Deputy —arises to a very large extent from the Act introduced by the Government of which I had the honour to be a member in 1956. If it were not for the incentives introduced by the Mining (Taxation) Act, 1956, it is quite certain that we would not have got the development in mining there has been since that time. Let me say at once that while I believe that that Act was the beginning of all that mining interest, at the same time, it is only proper to add that Dr. Ryan, when Minister for Finance, or the present Minister for Finance—I cannot remember which—did improve my Act by making an extension of the period provided in it on one occasion. The effect of that interest that was aroused partly by the initial interest created by the Avoca Copper Mines and subsequently by other mining ventures would not have been possible but for our incentive provisions in regard to taxation of mining projects.

It is very easy to be wise after the event but it now seems quite clear that technically, had Avoca been put on the care and maintenance basis that the technologists suggested during the period of low metal prices at the end of 1959 and the beginning of 1960, it would have been a very much greater success later on and would still be in operation. Of course, as I say, it is very easy to be wise after the event and equally it is easy to understand that the political decision involved in over-riding the technical aspects of the matter was bound to be influenced by the very large number of men employed there and the natural anxiety to retain those men in employment at the time. At the same time if the mine had been kept just ticking over, as it were, during the basic period of low metal prices, we would still have in the Parliamentary Secretary's constituency a mine operating, now that metal prices have risen again.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. P. Brennan)

God is good; it might happen yet.

Mr. Sweetman

The unfortunate part of it was that what happened during the period of basic low prices was that in order to comply with the direction given by the Government at the time with regard to employment, the best part of the lodes were worked out at the wrong time and now the position in relation to the machinery is difficult and I do not think the plant is in condition.

As I say, while this is a criticism I want to make it quite clear that it is an ex post facto criticism and it is easy to have hindsight. I mention it only to ensure that no one can point to Avoca and what happened there and say that other mining ventures in Ireland cannot be a success. The venture which is starting tomorrow, and which many of us will have an opportunity of seeing started, is something that arose primarily from the interest created by the Act of 1956. The re-emergence of Silvermines in Tipperary as a viable economic mining proposition arises from the same thing, with the amendment that the present Government introduced, and so will be the position in Gortdrum.

I was talking some time ago to a Canadian in this respect and he ventured to say that the percentage of finds in relation to mining in Ireland was about equivalent to the Canadian percentage of prospecting and that the new modern means of dealing with prospecting, exploration, development and mining were such that there was a reasonable chance that they and others could be brought into operation. The employment, the Minister has stated, in this venture will be of a substantial nature and I hope and believe that if metal prices go right—that is an international matter over which we have no control—it will mean substantial employment for a period of at least ten years and upwards.

I want to end as I began, by expressing my thanks for the manner in which the difficulties regarding the siting of the concentrator mill which will cost a matter of over five million dollars were met. Otherwise, the over-burden would be so heavy that the cost of erection would have been very large. I also appreciate that the despatch which is necessary these days in tying up arrangements has been forthcoming from the Minister and the Government in introducing the Bill and it is only proper that I should publicly say so.

Mr. James Tully

On behalf of the Labour Party, I wish to say we are supporting the Bill and will give every assistance in having it passed through the House as quickly as possible. We are particularly pleased because this is another example of an industry attempting to do something for itself and the country without a public handout. The mining people, with one exception, have got as far as they have gone without public money, and, like Deputy Sweetman, I am pleased that this appears to be another successful effort in mining, following the very successful effort at Tynagh. I have a particular wish that the Tynagh venture shall be successful, not for the same reason as Deputy Sweetman but because I had possibly the luck or at any rate the honour, of bringing the people who are involved in Tynagh into the country in the first instance. Apart from that, the Government made provision by way of legislation which gave them certain facilities and that was originally the reason why they agreed to come. I fear the encouragement which they got from others was not very great. It is good to see that in spite of the adversity which appeared to stare them in the face at every turn they have come through. I hope the firm now starting in Tipperary will in fact be as successful as Tynagh appears to be.

There is one point in the Bill which I should like the Minister to explain. In his opening speech he said:

I should, perhaps, emphasise at this point that the amount which will be approved under the section will be related to the market value of the relevant interest in the property, rather than to the present value of the annuity calculated on a strictly mathematical basis.

Also in section 97 (5) of the Housing Bill it is stated:

A housing authority may, before giving their consent to the alienation or subdivision of any cottage or the plot or any part of the plot held with the cottage, require the payment to them of an amount approved by the Minister for the purposes of this section.

Am I to take it from this statement that it is not proposed to allow vested cottages to be redeemed at the balance of the annuity which is due but that in fact a new idea is being introduced which suggests that there should be something in the nature of a market value put on the house? I should like that to be clarified because if that is the idea we would not be prepared to support this section of the Bill. Possibly it is intended to be operated in this case only. If so, perhaps the Minister would make that clear but we would object if it is to be generally proposed that in future the county manager will have the right to say to a tenant of a vested cottage who wants to redeem an annuity which may represent a balance of only £10: "The house is worth £600 and you can redeem the annuity by paying the balance of the money," which may be £540 or £560. Perhaps I have got the wrong end of the stick but the Minister's statement would make it seem that this is again to be left in the hands of the county manager. The Minister is not in the habit of saying to county managers: "You are asking too much." For that reason I should like the matter to be clarified.

Apart from that, I think it right to introduce this Bill now and get it through as quickly as possible.

Mr. Clinton

I welcome the Bill for more or less the same reasons as Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Tully. I have felt for a long time and I have said before that Local Government has not played the part it should have played in the encouragement and establishment of industry. This is an indication that at least a move has been made at the right time to enable a large industrial development to take place and so provide employment opportunities for a large number of people who, no doubt, badly need it.

I welcome it for another reason. I regret very much that we should not treat similarly those portions of the Bill which are expected to bring some additional benefits to those who require houses. There are not many sections of the Bill which, in my view, represent improvement and it is a great pity they could not have been included in this Bill and thus give more time for the re-enactment of previous legislation and for the tidying up job being done generally in this Bill.

My curiosity was excited, like Deputy Tully's, regarding the market value suggestion. There may be some good reason for it. Perhaps a case might be made where, for instance, the tenant of a vested cottage suddenly becomes well off and is in a position to buy it out and even go directly into competition with a neighbouring shopkeeper who could have a grouse and could say: "I subsidised the building of this house in order to provide a dwelling for this man, not to enable him to build a shop to compete against me in my business." There may be something of that sort and the Minister may be attempting to safeguard the local authority; otherwise, it is hard to understand.

One reason why I should like this measure to go through immediately is that county managers generally have refused to anticipate this legislation and have refused to divide cottage plots to enable a cottage to be built on a vested cottage plot. This is very wrong and ridiculous. There are many areas where there are large cottage plots, with all the services laid on, forming excellent sites with road frontages for second houses. In many areas where gardens are neither used nor appreciated, where, in fact, they are a disfigurement to the countryside with noxious weeds growing across the ditches, they could be used to build a second house. It may be that people employed from such cottages are unable to attend to the plots because of their type of employment and the gardens are neglected, but they form excellent sites, already serviced.

In many cases the building of a second house would enable members of a family to live close to their elderly parents who may require a certain amount of home nursing. The building of a second house would in such cases have the effect of keeping the parents out of homes and hospitals, simply because the member of the family living nearby in the second house would be able to give them the bit of daily attention they need in their old age. I am very pleased to see this legislation going through so expeditiously. Many local authority managers have refused to anticipate this legislation and give this facility to many people who badly need it.

Mr. Treacy

As a Deputy from Tipperary, I feel I should welcome this measure and express the hope that the exploration of the mines in Tipperary will prove to be an outstanding success. I realise too well the necessity to get rid of the inhibitions attached to the vesting of cottages and to make clear the way for the proper mortgaging and subdivision, if necessary, of these cottages in the future.

I express the hope that the injection of 22 million dollars into the mining venture concerned will bring a very large reward to all those engaged in the enterprise. I am particularly concerned to see the success of this project because it will afford much employment to Tipperary men. I also hope that such pitfalls as we have seen in the past, especially in respect to the Avoca Mines, will not be repeated here. I am grateful for the interest of the Minister and his Department in this matter. As Deputy Tully has indicated, we on this side of the House will give our full support to this measure.

Mr. Blaney

I have little to add to what I said in my introductory remarks except, in reply to Deputy Tully, to say that what he fears is quite true. What is in the Bill is what is proposed in the Housing Bill and it will have the effect of having the outstanding interest in respect of a cottage not subject to sale subject to a simple multiplication of the number of years outstanding by relating it to the commercial value that a freehold of this nature would be worth at the end of the purchase period. It is fair to say that the outright purchase will arise merely because of the fact that the occupant wants to clear his property so that he is free to do what he wishes with it. He can part with it for a very enhanced figure or retain it for a much more profitable occupation than merely using it as a residence. As Deputy Clinton has said, a shopkeeper in an adjoining house or nearby could suffer considerable competition and it could help him to subscribe the cost of this dwelling which was erected purely as a dwelling and which now, because of the change in the law that will take place if this Bill is passed, could be converted to a purpose which would put the adjoining shopkeeper out of business altogether.

Mr. James Tully

Has the Minister never heard of the 1963 Planning Act?

Mr. Blaney

I am still hearing of it.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill considered in Committee.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. James Tully

The Minister referred to a council giving their consent. It is all right saying that if we do not do this a lot of people will buy cottages for the purpose of starting shops. The 1963 Planning Act makes this impossible if a local authority consider it undesirable. It is no use introducing a red herring here. We spent several hours yesterday discussing the question of the managers' authority. Now we want all local authority managers to have the right to say that a cottage which may have been built for £70, as a lot of them were, can be redeemed for £10 but because somebody whispers in the ears of a manager—the Minister does not come into it—the result could be that the cottage, instead of being redeemed for £10, could have its price run up to hundreds of pounds which the person would be unable to pay. It is rather a pity the section has been drafted in this way.

If there was some right of appeal or some way of dealing with it other than by allowing the matter to be fixed by the manager with the consent of the Minister, I should welcome it. I am well aware, and I give the Minister credit for it, that there is a danger in certain cases that cottages, which are worth a lot of money and which are require as much as £200 to pay off the annuity, may be redeemed by somebody who wants to sell them for a big figure. That danger is there and it may not be removed by this section.

I would ask the Minister to have another look at this because it can impose a lot of hardship. There are still in this country a lot of old people who have not very much money who would dearly love to own their own cottage just for the purpose of owning it and being able to say "It is ours and we do not have to pay anything for it." Those people can, if it is left the way it is, be made to pay a very substantial sum if they want to purchase it. The Minister may say that the local authority will have the right to opt these people out. If the Minister says that local authority in this context are the members of the local authority I will agree with him but so long as he leaves it to the officials the officials will not make that exception and the Minister knows that well.

Mr. Sweetman

On the general principle in relation to subsection (5), I think there is more in the subsection than Deputy Tully feels. I should like to see a proviso added to subsection (5) of the general Bill, when it comes on at a later stage and when this is repealed, that there would not be any such payment in the case of transfer to a genuine agricultural labourer. What is happening at present, particularly in, say, Kildare, is that when a vested cottage is available for sale the effect of our proximity to Dublin is such that competition for the vested cottage tends to be the competition of what I might call the commuter. The price accordingly goes up and the genuine agricultural labourer in Kildare has no chance of being able to buy a vested cottage.

I should like to see some situation in which there would be a real incentive to and a real bias in favour of an agricultural labourer, as such, becoming the purchaser of a vested cottage at the cheapest possible price or the price that would be within his scope. There is, of course, a danger that others will speak of limiting ownership and, accordingly, limiting incentives to vest. I think an analysis, probably, of the sales of vested cottages within a 30 miles perimeter of Dublin would show that very few of those cottages have been bought by people working on the land although the cottages were erected primarily for people working on the land. Therefore those who are working on the land in the areas concerned should get a strong bias in the legislation and in its administration in their favour.

Mr. James Tully

Actually, what Deputy Sweetman has said has a certain amount of force behind it. "Agricultural labourer" when the Act was passed had a different meaning from what "agricultural labourer" means now. If the suggestion were made that those working or living in a rural area should have a right to purchase, without having to pay anything extra, I think that would satisfy our objection to it. There is the other point, and the Minister should consider this carefully, that one of the biggest scandals in this country at the present time is the vested cottage that is locked up.

Mr. Sweetman

Hear, hear.

Mr. James Tully

This, in fact, will help to remove that but it will make the position much more difficult. At the present time, we have succeeded in getting quite a number of people who have vested cottages and who have moved out of the district, or gone to England, and so on, to sell their interest in the cottage at a reasonable cost. If, in order to redeem the cottage, they are required to pay the full market value, it will remain locked up. If the Minister can think of some way of dealing with that matter he would be well advised to do so.

I want to deal now with subsection (3). This Bill is being rushed through the House now—pardon the expression —for very good reasons.

Mr. Blaney

Not "rushed."

Mr. James Tully

No, the Minister would not do that.

Mr. Blaney

"Expedited."

Mr. James Tully

Is there any danger that the passing of sections of this Bill, which are repeated in the other Bill, may have the effect that we shall be told: "We have just passed this a few days ago and, therefore, we cannot change it now or it will change the whole effect of the Labourers Bill"? I think it should be the Silvermines Bill rather than the Labourers Bill which is before the House this morning.

Mr. Sweetman

I cannot see Deputy Tully letting anything away,

Mr. James Tully

The Minister has a very persuasive way.

Mr. Blaney

I do not know what has come over the Deputy since we broke up. He does not believe anything.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister is well aware of the position. What about the 1963 Planning Act?

Mr. Clinton

On subsection (5) there is a good deal to be said on both sides and what is needed is some written-in safeguard. I think we would all like a situation to be arrived at where ownership would not be limiting, if at all possible. There is no use trying to induce people to invest in their houses, at the same time telling them they are entitled only to limited ownership. If we had unlimited ownership, I do not think a person, because he happens to buy the interest in a cottage and cottage plot, should be denied the right to have its market value increased if something increases it. Accidents can happen to anybody's property and, overnight, it can rocket in value. People in that group should not be debarred from getting that reward if that reward comes their way. At the same time, there is a lot to be said for preventing these cottages and cottage plots from being purchased by certain people. Perhaps, one of these multiple stores might come along and purchase in certain areas.

Deputy Sweetman expressed his particular interest in agricultural labourers. I am interested in agricultural labourers and I am interested in anybody who is a worker on a low income regardless of whether or not he is an agricultural labourer. It is very desirable to ensure, as far as possible, that if a cottage and a cottage plot are being passed on to an individual in the lower income group, regardless of what he works at, it should be passed on without adding to it the manager's idea of value because, without question, cottages in the Dublin region have become extremely valuable. They reach extraordinary values indeed. I think we should not just accept this Bill as it stands without having these written-in safeguards. The Minister should indicate his intention of giving these safeguards on the next Stage of the Bill.

Mr. Blaney

A number of points have been made on the question of the redeeming of the annuity on these cottages. Mention was made of some old person who would really wish to own a cottage. If it is vested, there is a ridiculously low figure of £1, 35/- or £2 per annum payable as an annuity and outstanding for the next five or six years. Surely this is likely to be the least possible charge at which any person, old or young, could hope to have a suitable place in which to live for the years ahead? If for any purpose it is desired to redeem the annuity in toto and there is no reason to believe that he is going to move out from the cottage or put on the open market for further gain a cottage that has been provided by the community for his benefit when he is not so well off, this case would be dealt with on its merits and the redemption of the annuity could be a simple multiplication but need not necessarily be. That is what this section implies. If, on the other hand, it is known that the sale is for the purpose of getting complete freedom from the council of any jurisdiction that up to now the council has had over the cottage and the use to which it was put, obviously the redemption would not necessarily be a simple multiplication of the annuity by the number of years still outstanding, for this reason that once the occupier becomes completely free by redeeming the annuity, the council that provided the house or cottage no longer has the slightest control over it, any more than it would have in respect of private property erected by somebody else.

In respect of cottages such as those that have been talked about here as being vacant, the people being gone, I should mention in passing that that matter is being dealt with in so far as weaknesses in the law have been exposed as to the resumption of these cottages by local authorities. Some councils have succeeded in resuming possession. Other have not. The sections in the Housing Bill should clarify the situation so that where a council wants to resume in those circumstances the law will uphold it in all these cases.

Apart from that, take the vested cottage that is now vacant. Supposing we give freedom to redeem the annuity, would it not be ridiculous to allow a person to redeem the annuity at the ridiculously low figure arrived at by simple multiplication of the annuity by the number of years yet to run, which might be five or six and the annuity might be a couple of pounds a year and to confirm him in possession of a house completely free of any jurisdiction of the council and in respect of which the council cannot do anything to resume possession once it has been freed in this way? This is a matter that deserves very serious consideration and is one of the primary reasons why we feel that subsection (5) of section 2 should be in the form in which we are putting it before the House. Taking it a step further, it would probably be quite true to say, that if people in these vested cottages can afford to leave them, use them occasionally, and have them locked up and going to loss, and if they want to redeem the cottage let them have it but they will not be able to do it at the low cost involved in the annuity relationship but will be able to do it on the relationship of the value and the number of years yet to go. Let them have it but let the council that provided the cottage and who are now disposing of all control in that cottage get something back from those people in exchange for freeing that cottage and use that money towards the provision of a cottage of a similar type for others who want houses. If they want to have it, give it to them but make them pay for it and use the money obtained in that way to build a house for somebody who wants it.

These are, very broadly, the reasons why we feel the subsection should stand. More can be said on the sections in the Housing Bill when we come to them.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister has inserted the conditional consent of the council in this section from his original section and I think it is a good improvement.

Mr. Blaney

That is correct, yes.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Sweetman

I do not quite understand paragraph (a). It runs:

Where premises subject to and charged with the future payment of an annuity are alienated—

and goes on:

or are acquired by the council of a county to whom, before the acquisition, the annuity was required to be paid, or (b) an annuity is redeemed under section 3 of the Act.

all the provisions of the Act of 1936, including the statutory conditions, which but for this section would continue to apply in respect of the premises during the payment period, shall, in case the premises are so acquired or the annuity redeemed in full, cease so to apply, or in any other case, cease so to apply to such extent as the council of a county shall, by order, determine.

Is the word "alienated" there, say, to another agricultural labourer? Are the words "or in any other case," in line 30, intended to refer purely to the alienation case? I think they are. I just want to be quite sure. Section 4 (a) uses the word "alienated" and it is not referred to anywhere else in the section.

Mr. Blaney

Alienation would relate to a case where it was sold.

Mr. Sweetman

Sold to somebody. But it is not used anywhere else. There is no provision for what happens on alienation but there is a general provision in the words "or in any other case." Is that intended to cover alienation?

Mr. Blaney

Alienation Is referred to in section 2.

Mr. Sweetman

In section 2, certainly, but not in section 4. It again gives reference to acquisition and reference to redemption but never mentions alienation again.

Mr. Blaney

I think the probable position is that where alienated or where the annuity is redeemed in part the statutory conditions do not necessarily cease to exist or if they do cease to exist to any degree that degree is decided by the local authority.

Mr. Sweetman

Fair enough. That is quite reasonable.

Mr. James Tully

The local authority being the manager.

Mr. Blaney

This is one case—section 4 specific, individual cases as distinct from classes.

Mr. James Tully

We should have all the county managers before the Minister on section 4. Then we would see if it would be so popular.

Mr. Blaney

Send them up to me and we will see.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

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

Mr. Sweetman

May I add to the appreciation that I have already expressed of the manner in which the Government introduced this measure expeditiously, appreciation of the manner in which the House dealt with it? I am quite certain that so far as either the elected representatives in North Tipperary County Council or the officials of the county council in North Tipperary are concerned, we will get the same co-operation as we have already got from them in such good measure up to date.

Mr. Blaney

The Seanad is the next stage.

Mr. Sweetman

I will look after that.

Question put and agreed to.