This is an amendment to Section 54, sub-section (6), page 27, line 6. It reads:—
"After the word ‘section' to insert the words ‘or otherwise by law.'"
That is a formal amendment.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1924.—REPORT STAGE RESUMED.
Amendment No. 43 (Government amendment).
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 44 (Government amendment):—
Section 56, sub-section (4), page 27, line 32. To delete the words "or officer."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 45.
I beg to propose:—
Section 59, sub-section (1), page 28, line 13. To delete the words "lunatic asylum" and to substitute therefor the words "mental hospital."
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think the principle of this is accepted. It would be a consequential amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 46 (Government amendment:—
Section 59, sub-section (3), page 28, line 33. After the word "section" to insert, in brackets, the letter "(a)," and in line 37 after the word "period" to insert the words "and (b) a member shall be deemed not to have attended any meeting at which he proposes or votes for a political resolution."
This is an amendment in substitution for the one put forward by Senator Butler with regard to the disqualification of members who propose political resolutions. We are satisfied to give him this instead of the one he proposed on the Committee Stage, and I think he has accepted it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 47 (Government amendment):—
Section 59, sub-section (4), page 28, line 41. To delete all after the word "Act" to the end of the sub-section.
This is consequential on the previous amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 48.
I beg to propose:—
Section 61, sub-section (3), page 29, line 6. To insert after the sub-section two new sub-sections as follows:—
"(4) The council of any county may arrange with the council of any urban district in such county or of any county borough adjoining such county for the use of all or any of the purposes of the said Acts by the whole or some specified part of the county of any part of the building or of the library facilities of any public library situate in such urban district or county borough on such terms as may be agreed upon between the council of the urban district or county borough in which such library is situate and the council of such county.
(5) The powers given by the last preceding sub-section shall be without prejudice and in addition to, not in derogation from, the powers given by section 3 of the Public Libraries (Ireland) Act, 1894 (as amended or extended by any other enactment, including this section), by section 4 of the said Act and by the next succeeding sub-section of this section."
I am not convinced on the question as to whether there were powers under previous Library Acts to give urban councils and borough councils power to sub-let their libraries—in other words, to give rural districts library facilities. There is power, of course, to amalgamate urban districts with county districts, and urban districts like Kilkenny are quite satisfied and anxious that the rural population should have the advantage of their library. I think if the Minister could tell me that that power exists already it would be all right.
I really believe that we have these powers. However, it is no harm to have them mentioned specifically here, and I am willing to accept this amendment.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That applies to both sub-sections?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 49 (Government amendment):—
Section 61, sub-section (6). Page 29, to delete the sub-section.
There is nothing new in this amendment. The object of it is to remove the provisions of the next amendment from Section 61, which does not apply to the City of Dublin. This provision was inserted specifically with a view to having it in operation in the City of Dublin. We find that this section is excluded from the City, and in order to have it operative there we have to have this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 50 (Government amendment):—
New Section. Before Section 62 to insert a new section as follows:—
62.—The powers of a library authority under the Public Libraries (Ireland) Acts. 1855-1920 shall include power to incur expenditure out of the library rate on the provision of public lectures and exhibitions (whether admission to such lectures or exhibitions is free or subject to such charges and conditions as the library authority may determine) and libraries in schools."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 51.
I beg leave, in the absence of Senator Dowdall, to move this amendment. It reads:—
New Section. Before Section 62 to insert a new section as follows:—
62.—(1) The council of any county, county or other borough or urban district, or the commissioners of any town may, either alone or jointly or in combination with any one or more other such councils or commissioners, advertise and may expend money in advertising, by the insertion of advertisements in newspapers or by means of posters, placards or otherwise as they think fit, the advantages and amenities as a health or pleasure resort of such county or any part thereof, borough, district or town, or, in the case of joint or combined advertisements of an area comprising the whole or any parts of the respective counties, boroughs, districts and towns of the several councils or commissioners so joining or combining.
(2) The council of any county, county or other borough or urban district or the commissioners of any town may with the approval of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health pay such annual or other contribution as they think fit to the funds of any association.
(a) formed for the purpose of advertising the advantages and amenities of places in Saorstát Eireann or any part thereof as health or pleasure resorts, and
(b) approved of by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and
(c) required by that Minister as a condition of his approval to have its account audited by an auditor of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.
Provided always that every contribution made under this sub-section to the funds of any such association shall be expended by such association in accordance with a scheme approved by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and not otherwise.
(3) The expenses incurred under this section—
(a) in the case of the council of a county, shall be defrayed out of the county funds and raised by means of the poor rate as a county at large charge, and
(b) in the case of the council of a county or other borough or of an urban district, shall be defrayed out of any rate or fund applicable to the purposes of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1919, in like manner as if they had been incurred for the purposes of those Acts, and
(c) in the case of the commissioners of a town, shall be raised by means of the rate levied by them under section 60 of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, but shall be excluded in ascertaining any limit imposed by law upon such rate.
(4) The amount of the rate raised by the council of any county or county borough for the purposes of this section shall not exceed one penny in the pound, and the amount of the rate raised for the purposes of this section by the council of any borough, other than a county borough, or of any urban district or by the commissioners of any town together with the amount of the rate raised for the said purposes by the council of the county in which such borough, district or town is situate, shall not exceed threepence in the pound."
This amendment refers to health and pleasure resorts. It was proposed by Senator Dowdall on the Committee Stage. The Government agreed with the principle and they suggested that it should be amplified. I understand that Senator Dowdall has consulted with the Government, and that the amendment on the paper is acceptable to them.
I am accepting it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The whole of it?
Yes.
We want to be perfectly sure that this amendment is not going to operate in this way—that an urban council would strike a rate for the advertising of its own town. and that that rate would be distributed over the whole county or over any area outside that urban district. Would the Minister briefly explain whether that would be the effect of this amendment? As it stands it is rather complicated.
An urban district has no power to strike a rate except on its own district. Unless the county council was anxious to participate in this it would not be bound to strike a rate for the benefit of the urban districts. I do not think you need have any fear of that.
So, if any rate is to be spread over the whole county it must be definitely struck by the county council?
Yes.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That, apparently, is so, because the new Bill says: "Provided... the council may contribute." It does not say "may levy a rate." It is that it may make a contribution.
I object to the county council having the power to put any further rate on the ratepayers. There is a rate of 3d. in the £ for the purpose of advertising these watering places. Now that the urban councils will be so strongly represented on the county council, there is some danger that they would force the county council to agree to this rate. I think there is no necessity for placing on the county council the duty of advertising watering places in urban districts in their county. I object to the amendment.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You are right, Senator, in so far as the section does provide that any contributions to be made by county councils or other body outside the body advertising the place, shall be defrayed by raising a rate on the county at large. You are right as regards that.
I think the rate is limited under Section 4 to 1d. in the £.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Yes, that is so. Does that meet your objection, Senator Linehan?
Well, I object all the time.
I think that the people of this country have the opportunity of a life-time at present for advertising the tourist resorts of the country. A new scheme has been started in America and in other countries. In recent times these countries have lost a lot of the emigrant travel they had in the old days on account of the restrictions on emigrants. Consequently they have looked around to see in what way they could make good that loss. The railway companies and the steamship companies have come together and offered special facilities to the descendants of those who in the past they carried to the United States, to come back and visit the various European countries to which their people belonged. Recently I was a member of a deputation that saw the representative of the various shipping companies and who also spoke on behalf of the associated companies and the Canadian Pacific. They gave a guarantee that any literature that we produced and sent to them will be distributed from the Atlantic Coast to California, and from Canada to Mexico. If we take advantage of that we have an opportunity that may not arise again of getting our health resorts advertised cheaply. For that reason I support the amendment.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendment 52.
I beg to propose:
New Section. Before Section 63 to insert a new section as follows:—
"63.—It shall be lawful for the Minister in such cases as he may think fit to grant to any new buildings erected on old disused sites or to any existing factories or warehouses which, owing to their dangerous condition are in need of repair, immunity from re-valuation for a period of five years after the erection or rebuilding has been completed."
It would be a great thing at present for employment if we could get this section put into force so that there would be no increase on the valuation for five years. The building trades at present are in a bad way, and it is no encouragement for any man to start building owing to the high cost of materials. If we had a section of this kind in the Bill, that there would be no increase in rates for five years, it would help us. The principle of this amendment was well received by the Seanad on the Committee Stage on the last occasion.
I second that.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You state that what you are aiming at is that they should have immunity for a certain period from rates. What you propose here is "immunity from re-valuation for a period of five years." Is there any reason why re-valuation should not take place, provided it was not to come into force for a period of five years?
Oh, no.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Well, your amendment would prevent premises being re-valued for five years, whereas what you want could be provided for notwithstanding any re-valuation, by saying that no rates should be levied on the valuation for a period of five years. That would still allow the re-valuation to go on.
If we get a form of words that would have that effect I am satisfied.
Senator Brown, I think, is moving an amendment that will, I think, perhaps meet Senator O'Rourke's view point in this matter. Senator Brown's amendment is as far as we are prepared to go at the present time.
I move amendment 52 (a):—
"Before Section 63 to insert a new section as follows:—
63. (1) In this section the expression "new building" means either
(a) a building, the erection of which was or shall have been begun and completed during the period from the 1st day of April, 1920, to the 1st day of April, 1927, or
(b) a building, the structure of which has been substantially enlarged or improved, and such enlargement or improvement was or shall have been begun and completed during the period aforesaid.
The expression "exemption year" means (i) in relation to any new building which is exempt from re-valuation under the provisions of Section 7 of the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916—any of the local financial years between the 1st day of April, 1929, and the 31st day of March, 1933; (ii) in relation to any new building which is exempt from re-valuation under the provisions of Section 8 of the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1924—any of the local financial years between the 1st day of April, 1930, and the 31st day of March, 1933; (iii) in relation to any other new building—any of the local financial years between the 1st day of April, 1926, and the 31st day of March, 1933.
(2) For the purposes of the assessment and levying of any rate raised by a local authority for the service of any exemption year, and subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of this section, the valuation of every new building under the Valuation Acts shall be deemed to have been reduced by one-half.
(3) The preceding sub-section shall not have effect in the case of any house erected under the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1921, the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1919, or the Housing (Building Facilities) Acts, 1924.
(4) If any doubt, dispute or question shall arise as to whether a building is a new building within the meaning of this section, such doubt, dispute or question shall be determined by the Minister, whose decision shall be final.
It proposes to add a new section, and the object of the new section is to encourage building, and to encourage building quickly, owing to the great want of employment at present. It proposes to do this, not by preventing the valuation of a new building being altered, but by preventing the rates being struck in each financial year on more than one half of the valuation, and that is to last until the end of the financial year, that is the 31st March, 1933. I may say that it brings within the scope of this section any building which was erected, or even reconstructed, and the building completed before the 1st April, 1920, because under this section houses which were built, or rebuilt or reconstructed after 1920, and before the passing of this Act, will get greater benefits from the remission of rates under this Act than they would otherwise. What the section does first is to define what a new building is, because the section works on the definition of a new building, and a new building is defined in sub-section (a).
In this section the expression "new building" means either a building the erection of which was or shall have been begun and completed during the period from the 1st day of April, 1920, to the 21st day of April, 1927.
The 1st April, 1927, is put there for the purpose of giving this benefit to the people who hurry up in building, and, therefore, it gives them two years, and in order to get the benefits of this Act the new building must be a building which is erected within the next two years. That is the first half of the definition of a new building, and the other half is
A new building, the structure of which has been substantially enlarged or improved, and such enlargement or improvement was or shall have been begun and completed during the period aforesaid.
That is between the 31st March, 1920, and the 31st March, 1927. That definition provides for an entirely new building, or a reconstructed and improved building. Then we have to go on defining in order to make things clear and watertight. The definition of the term "exemption year" is any financial year during which these new buildings are to be exempted from rates to the extent mentioned lower down.
With regard to the definition of "exemption year," the exemption under the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916, is a better exemption than they are getting under this Act, so it is preserved to them down to the end of the last year under which they get exempted under that Act. That is why in those cases "exemption year" means exemption after any year from the 1st April, 1925, to the 1st April, 1933. The definition goes on:—
In relation to any new building which is exempt from revaluation under the provisions of Section 8 of the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1924—any of the local financial years between the 1st day of April, 1930, and the 31st day of March, 1933.
That is for the same reason because the exemptions under that Act go on until the 31st March, 1933, and the first exemption for this building will begin on the 1st April, 1920.
Thirdly, exemption in relation to any other new building—any of the local financial years between the 1st day of April, 1926, and the 31st day of March, 1933.
The reason the 1st April, 1926, is fixed and not 1925 is this:—That the rates have been assessed and struck for this year, and that cannot be helped, so it is beginning to operate in 1926, that is the next financial year in respect of which it can be worked. Having defined a new building and exemption the definition goes on:—
For the purpose of the assessment and levying of any rate raised by a local authority for the service of any exemption year, and subject to the provisions of sub-section 3 of this Section the valuation of every new building under the Valuation Acts shall be deemed to have been reduced by one-half.
That is, no matter what is the valuation appearing in the rate-book, any new building within the definition of this section will only be assessed during these exemption years at half the actual valuation.
Sub-section 3 says:—The preceding sub-section shall not have effect in the case of any house erected under the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1921. the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1919, or the Housing (Building Facilities) Acts, 1924.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is an enlargement of the amendment on the paper.
Yes. The reason for not allowing this section to have effect in the case of a building erected under the three sets of Acts mentioned is this: The Housing of the Working Classes Act is an Act which is worked by the local authorities, and there is no use in exempting them, for they are the people who pay the rates, and they are the people who receive the rates.
That is not so.
We will discuss that later on. The Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883, are in the same position. They are also houses built by the local authorities. The reasons for leaving out houses erected under the Housing (Building Facilities) Act, 1924, is this: That under that Act the rating authority has the option of remitting rates in a certain way for nineteen years. That is optional, but the Minister can direct them to do it, so it is in his hands. For that reason also I ask that that Act be excluded from the operation of this Section.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Under sub-clause (2), as I understand, no matter what valuation appears in the valuation list, any premises that come within the definition of "new building" year, that valuation is deemed to be reduced by one-half. How would that work out? Take the case of a building enlarged or improved, and which therefore has become a new building within the meaning of this, there is no increase in the valuation, and then it is reduced by one-half. Supposing the building next door, which has been enlarged, has its valuation increased, it does not get the same advantage.
It does not get the same advantage. It gets a reduction of one-half on its new valuation, and it is only in the case of a building very largely improved that it can have that effect. There is no way in which it could be drafted so as not to have some sort of an anomaly, but, on the whole, it will be of great benefit to people building, and who give employment within the next two years.
Mr. O'Dea rose.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Are you rising to second the amendment?
Yes, on condition.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Then I am afraid we will have to get someone to second it unconditionally.
Then I second it. I am not satisfied with it, and I do not know that I quite understand it, as it is a very technical section. I would be satisfied with it provided that the new valuation gave relief from all rates for the period stated in the section.
Yes, all rates.
That is local rates, and not including income tax. We see what the Imperial Government have done in this direction, and we think that our own Government ought to be as generous and to give as good advantages as have been given in the 1916 Act. Senator O'Rourke's amendment does not ask the Government to shed any revenue whatever, and neither does it ask the local authorities to shed any revenue. We quite agree that the revenue ought to be paid on the existing valuation. What we want is that there would be no valuation for a period of five to seven years.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is no new valuation that would take effect on the rates.
Precisely. Of course everyone in this House knows that the present cost of building is at least two and a half times what it was in 1916. That is a load which few men are in a position to face. It means in ninetynine cases out of a hundred that all the spare cash and the reserves a man has will go into that building. You cause disturbance to business during the operation of building, because a man's business will be upset owing to having to pay such an enormous price as the cost of building entails, and he would be in no position to pay on the new valuation, probably three times the existing one, for a term of at least seven or ten years. Another advantage, the greatest advantage of all, would be that it would be a substantial relief to the builders of new warehouses and new factories, or in the reconstruction of old ones, and it would give an immediate impetus to building. It would also help a lot of other industries besides the building trade. The probability is that half the people unemployed at present would be absorbed in these new buildings. I think there could be nothing better for the State than to set such building operations in progress. It would give a new aspect to Cork, Dublin and elsewhere, where there are, unfortunately, so many of these destroyed areas. It would inspire confidence in the people who might be called upon—I am not speaking officially—to subscribe to a new loan in the immediate future. Nothing would give more confidence in this country at present than the sight of expensive buildings going up. If the Minister could see his way to amend Senator Brown's proposed section and make the buildings immune from any extra valuation in respect of local rates for a period running to 1933 it would inspire great confidence in the minds of people who want to build, and of builders, to proceed with the work. If he could see his way to give immunity from increased local rates up to that time I think he would find that there would be an enormous impetus to building during this and next year.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You see. Senator, that is not the proposal in Senator Brown's amendment at all. I think you are suggesting that Senator Brown's amendment is not so liberal as Senator O'Rourke's.
Nor is it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
As I understand, Senator Brown's amendment would be much more liberal, and I will tell you why. As Senator O'Rourke's amendment stands all that it would accomplish would be this, that rebuilt or reconstructed premises would pay rates just as before, but only on the old valuations. Senator Brown proposes that in the case of a rebuilt building, for example, a factory, it should only pay rates on one half of the new valuation. There may be a re-valuation, but in any case, take it on the new or the old, it would seem to be a much more liberal allowance than any that would be derived under Senator O'Rourke's amendment.
I agree, that is if half the existing rate was to be remitted. I am afraid that that is not what is in Senator Brown's amendment. I think he means the valuation of the new building.
The valuation for the time being.
Does the Senator mean the present time?
No, for the time being. For the particular year in question.
That would not be as good as Senator O'Rourke's, or nearly as good, because the new building would probably be rated at three or four times the existing valuation, and therefore half of it would be a great deal more than the whole of the existing rate. Therefore it would not be as good as Senator O'Rourke's amendment.
I think if Senator Brown had the experience of the Valuation Office that I have had he would not think his amendment was such a heaven-sent one. I may tell you that I have had valuation increased five times over.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That shows how progressive you are, Senator.
It is a case of killing the goose. I look upon the Valuation Office as being the absolute cause of the decay in the city. Let me explain what I mean. The modus operandi is as follows: you want to repair or improve a building, or erect a new building, and you lodge your plans with the Corporation. These plans are passed, and you go on with your building. When it is completed the Valuation Office comes down like a wolf on the fold and they revalue your premises without any consideration regarding the men on either side of you, whose valuations may have been in existence for twenty or thirty years. Up your valuation goes. When there is a re-valuation, as there was in 1916, they do not, as they did not then, take cognisance of what they have done perhaps fifteen years previously; you are rated pro rata on your existing valuation. The result is that people have got thoroughly tired of improving their property in the city, so much so that it is falling into decay, right, left and centre.
If the Minister would take his courage in both hands I could prove to him, I think, that he would lose nothing by a total remission of anything in the nature of increased valuations for a period of years. It would not cost the Corporation anything; they have already to light and to cleanse, and they have already paved the thoroughfare concerned. It would not be as if they had to open new thoroughfares; they are there already. But they would be building up a reserve for five or seven years to come, as the case may be, and in the meantime they are helping to improve the city and they will be deriving a profit from another source. People go to the Valuation Office and say: "You will have to revalue our places; we are going to rack and ruin." The valuation in such a case is reduced, and consequently the Corporation loses in that quarter what they gain in the other, and meanwhile the city is falling into decay. I think if the Minister could see his way to arrange that in the case of improvements to an existing building it would be exempt from an increased valuation for the time being, it would mean a great deal to the city and to employment in it.
This amendment is of such a technical character, and is so full of complications, that I think it is hardly fair that it should be brought forward on the Report Stage. It is extremely difficult to understand the complications contained in it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
There is a great deal of force, I think, in what you say, but I do not think that is the fault of the Government. It arose out of a discussion in Committee on Senator O'Rourke's amendment, and I think that Senator O'Rourke himself acquiesced in allowing the matter to stand over so that the Government might look into it. You could move to re-commit the Bill in order to reconsider it.
I do not care to do that, but I think it is not reasonable to suggest at this stage that we should be faced with an amendment of such a drastic character as this. Senator O'Rourke's amendment was easily understood, but I do not think that anybody except a highly skilled lawyer could understand Senator Brown's. When we discussed the matter in Committee it was on a question raised on Senator O'Rourke's amendment, that in the case of a new building there would be no re-valuation for a period of years. That was quite simple, and everybody understood it. But Senator Brown comes along at this stage and proposes to make it retrospective to 1920. That is a very important thing, and you must remember that certain buildings have been erected since 1920. They have been re-valued at their proper valuation, and rates have been paid on them. Will these people have to get a refund of the rates they have already paid?
They would get no refund under this amendment.
Of course, Senator Brown, who is a lawyer, may understand that, but as a layman I do not, because it is made retrospective, so far as I can understand, to 1920.
If the Senator looks at the definition he will find that that is not so. The abatement of the valuation only applies in each exemption year.
If I had the good fortune to be a lawyer I would understand that, but I must confess I do not.
You may take it that it is so.
I am not opposed to doing something in this regard, but I want to see fair play all round for the ratepayers as far as it is possible. We have always to remember that the local or the national authority requires a certain amount of money to carry on services, and that in this or any other city the local authority requires a certain amount of money for essential work for which they have budgeted. If you exempt certain people from paying their fair quota you will make others pay more than their fair share.
No, they are not deriving any benefit.
I am offering my opinion. Every local authority requires a certain amount of money to carry on essential services, and if some people are exempted from paying their fair share it follows that other people must pay more than their fair share. This amendment proposes to relieve certain people of their responsibilities, and would throw portion of the responsibilities which should have been theirs on to the shoulders of other people. Another important point on which I would like information is in connection with a reference made to the Dublin Reconstruction Bills of 1916 and 1924. Is it proposed to extend the period of exemption in both these cases? The year 1933 is mentioned. Is it proposed that after getting the full benefit of the 1916 Act and the 1924 Act, which, I think, brought them up to 1930, they will get a further exemption for three years? That is a most important point. We thrashed this thing out fairly and squarely on the Dublin Reconstruction Bill, 1924; the other Bill was promoted in the British Parliament. I was on the Committee of the Dublin Reconstruction Bill, 1924; we discussed the matter fully and came to a practically unanimous decision, which was accepted by the House and passed. I think if we were to go beyond the terms of the 1924 Act it would not be fair. If that is intended, I will oppose it. I do not think it is playing cricket, or that it is fair to get over what we did in the 1924 Reconstruction Act, or what was done in the 1916 Act. We should not be generous to some people at the expense of others.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Senator Brown, will you kindly tell the House what are the additional Acts you propose to insert in sub-clause (3)?
The additional Acts are the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1921; the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1919, and the Housing (Building Facilities) Act, our own Act, of 1924. Under the two first-named sets, the local authorities who have built these houses are the owners of them, and would be responsible for them. It would really only be a matter of bookkeeping.
That is not correct, with all respect to Senator Brown. I want to point out to him that if he would be generous he would be unknowingly doing an injustice to people occupying working-class houses, because the Corporation are letting these houses and are selling them to the tenants. Therefore, it is the tenants who will be paying the rates. They are becoming owners. They pay weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
And in a certain number of years they have bought their houses?
Yes, and the calculation for the payments is based on rates, ground rent and everything else, so that, I think, that would be inflicting an injustice in their case. I would like to know from Senator Brown whether or not he is increasing the exemptions under the Acts of 1924 and 1916, because, if so, I think it would be most unfair.
It seems to me that the whole discussion has turned on the point as to whether the improvements that will be effected in the future are to be taxed or not. Senator O'Rourke's proposal would exclude that, because he proposes that no re-valuation shall take place for a certain period of years. Senator Brown, on the other hand, proposes that the re-valuation should take place, but that when it had taken place rates on only half the valuation should be charged. It seems to me that the Seanad is, perhaps, not aware that a precedent exists for having no re-valuation, with a view to inducing people to do work which otherwise they might not do. Unless you give people some inducement it is highly probable that the work they do will not be as good, will not be as ornamental to the city, as if they got exemption, and a precedent does exist in the case of reclamations. The law, as far as I know, with regard to reclamation is that where people reclaim land which has hitherto been, we will say, covered by the tide, or anything of that sort, no valuation of the reclaimed land is made for seven years. If a similar clause could be put into this Bill, I think it would meet the case. I do not know whether Senator Brown would be prepared to accept an amendment to his amendment to this effect: If instead of saying "have been reduced by one-half" it read "shall be deemed to be the valuation before the reconstruction was commenced," it would exactly meet the case made by Senator O'Rourke, would fall in with the views of other Senators who spoke, and would, in my opinion, be of great benefit to the city at large, inasmuch as it would induce people to do work which they would not otherwise do.
There is another point which requires to be cleared up regarding the retrospective character of this amendment. As I read the amendment, it means that any building —that is, a building coming within the purview of the amendment—which was started after the 1st April, 1920, and completed since that period, will be entitled to the benefits to be derived from this amendment. For instance, a number of tobacco factories have been built in this city during the last year or two. They do not come under any Reconstruction Act. Do I take it that these buildings will derive the benefits to be granted under this amendment?
They come under (b).
I can quite imagine that the Irish tobacco factories, such of them as have been in existence previously, will have undoubtedly a grievance in that respect on the grounds of subsidising one factory as against another. I think it would be much better if there were no retrospective provision in the amendment, because I take it the desire is to encourage new building, and if that is the case you are not going to encourage it by giving exemptions to those places which have been already built. Then, in respect of reconstruction, you are not going to help that, because these buildings have already got certain exemptions, better than those now proposed, and you do not propose to interfere with those, but merely to add a few years to the period of exemption later on. Likewise, in the case of the 1916 buildings, you do not propose under the amendment to interfere with them, except to extend their period of exemption by a few years. Therefore, I think the retrospective character of the amendment would operate injuriously against existing traders and manufacturers. If we are going to try to encourage building we should at all events leave those who have already built to enter into fair competition one with another, and let the exemption be in respect of buildings erected in the future and in respect of which no exemption or preference exists at present.
There is another point which I wish to raise on this amendment, bearing on the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Restriction Act, 1923. Under that Act great injustice has been done in certain cases by charging rates on unoccupied houses. These houses are not houses that in any way would serve the housing need.
They are country houses, a long distance away from any population, whose owners owing to depression and other causes no longer live in them. If they are under a certain value—I have not got the exact figure at the moment; it is in the Act—they are liable for rates whether occupied or not. Reading this amendment in connection with the Rent Restrictions Act, what will be the basis of valuation for the purposes of exemption from rates by virtue of occupation or otherwise? Will it be the full value or half the value? I do not think that is quite clear.
It will be half the value.
That will make a certain number of houses which may be reconstructed and not occupied, during the exemption period, liable for rates, and house property owners view with grave alarm any provision that will extend what is in many cases this most unfair enactment which charges rates on unoccupied houses. It is true this Rent Restrictions Act expires next year, I think, but during the continuance of the Act my argument holds good.
I have a great deal or sympathy with Senators who desire a more drastic exemption from rates than is given by this amendment, but one has to do the best one can. If I thought I could soften the stony heart of the Minister and make him go a little farther, I would be very glad to do so. I am greatly afraid this amendment goes as far as we have any chance of getting the Minister to accept. With reference to the points raised by Senator Farren, I think his first point was that this amendment will leave one ratepayer, that is, the ratepayer who gets exemption, to get this benefit at the expense of all the other ratepayers. To an infinitesmal degree that perhaps is quite true. The ratepayer who gets exemption under this section will get off the sum measured by half the rates which he would otherwise pay, but it is such a small sum compared with the great bulk of the rates, that no ratepayer will be appreciably affected by it, and you cannot give relief of this kind without proceeding in that way. It is absolutely impossible to relieve one ratepayer except at the expense of others. He thought it would also affect the budgeting of the local authorities. It may affect the budgeting, but if it encourages building even to a small extent, and if new buildings are put up with large valuations, and other buildings are improved so that their valuations will be increased, the budget of the local authority will be very soon recouped for the loss it may suffer over the years of exemption. With reference to the Act of 1916 and the Act of 1924, the Senator thinks that those who got the benefit of these Acts should not get the benefit of this one. The rights of those who got the benefits of these Acts are preserved under this amendment, and it was thought only fair that they should get as long a period as the others, and that the benefit should be continued for them down to the same date. It would be very awkward having exemption for certain classes of houses for a certain number of years, and not having them all stopping at the same time.
With regard to the point as to the Labourers Cottages Act and the Housing of the Working Classes Act, the whole object of this amendment is to encourage building, and to encourage building within the next two years; but you will not by exemption their rates encourage the rating authorities themselves to put up houses. You are giving them no benefit. Therefore, these Acts are excluded from the operation of this amendment, because they would have been no use for the purpose of the amendment, which is to encourage building. With reference to Senator O'Farrell's suggestion, that this amendment should not be retrospective, there is a great deal to be said for not making any section in an Act of Parliament, even one which gives relief, retrospective. On the other hand, there is a great deal to be said for rewarding the good citizen who had built at a time when the rates were still high and when he had no hope of getting any relief from rates. He was a good citizen, and he should be rewarded, and it is in cases of that kind we can justify making this retrospective. With reference to Senator Sir John Keane's point, regarding the Rent Restrictions Act, in the case of unoccupied houses, I am afraid that that is a thing that we cannot possibly provide for in an amendment of this kind. It is simply one of those cases that you cannot provide for.
Would I be in order in moving an amendment to Senator Brown's, to the effect that the valuation shall be deemed to be the valuation before the reconstruction has commenced?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
We must keep this in order. We have the amendment standing in the name of Senator O'Rourke, and then we have the new amendment, of which notice has been given in the White Paper. I want to say that this is a very important, a very difficult, and a very intricate matter. Whatever conclusion we may arrive at to-day it would be wise if the House should agree that this whole question be considered on the next Reading. We might be doing something to-day that would have effects that are not at present apparent to the House.
We have gone fully into this matter with Senator Brown. I would like to accept an amendment something on the lines of that of Senator O'Rourke. The difficulty is that valuation is a matter that concerns the Ministry of Local Government only very indirectly. It is a matter for the Ministry of Finance. They are adamant on the matter, and will not yield. The only way I can come to your assistance is to allow some remission of the amount suggested in Senator Brown's amendment. It is not in my power to agree to Senator O'Rourke's amendment, and the same thing applies to Senator Barrington's alleged amendment. We realise that the amendment would be better if it went a little further, and we will substitute one-third for one-half. That is going very far. I realise there is a point in Senator O'Farrell's suggestion about the Act being retrospective. The primary object of the amendment is to encourage building. Senator Brown answered that very effectively by saying that the people who did step into the breach at a time when it was difficult to get people to build in the country should be rewarded as doing the right thing in difficult circumstances. On that ground I think it would be well to accept the amendment substituting two-thirds instead of a half.
There is a considerable prolongation of immunity in the Bill. Also the retrospective clauses give those people a further claim to immunity than they are enjoying already. The immunity which they have enjoyed for a number of years is increased. Now they are getting a prolongation at the expense of the ratepayers. I think it is just that people who want the Bill should get protection, but I want to make it clear that not only are we prolonging the immunity, but we are giving them increased retrospective immunity, which seems to me to be a great addition to the privileges granted to them already.
In consideration of the discussion we have had, I was going to suggest 75 per cent. instead of two-thirds. I will withdraw my amendment in favour of Senator Brown's.
I think the retrospective portion of this section is the most serious obstacle to its passing here. A case has been outlined by Senator O'Farrell in connection with tobacco factories. I am sure there are other cases comparable to this one. Factories are already built by people here; and it was not good citizenship that brought these people here, but rather commercial interests. They are already paying rates. If you insist on the retrospective portion of this schedule, then you are diminishing the local revenue by that amount, and you must pass it on to the few factories that were in existence. Consequently I think some attempt ought to be made to clear up the retrospective portion of this amendment.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Senator Foran's point is in development of the same point as Senator O'Farrell. The view they take of your amendment is this: In the case of persons who were attracted here from the business point of view and who considered it would be a good commercial investment to start certain factories, the effect of your amendment would be to enable them in the future to be exempt from two-thirds, and they would only pay rates on the remaining one-third. They suggest your amendment ought to prevent that.
I think it would be difficult to define a case like that.
I would omit subsection (a) altogether. You cannot do what is being pointed out without increasing the existing rates on the ratepayers so as to get the same revenue.
It is not a case of interest. It is a case of justice, because as I explained to the House, the object in making it retrospective was to give some kind of recognition to the people who took their courage in their hands and reconstructed their houses when times were bad and when building costs were still high. That is why we go back to 1916, when the building costs were enormous. You cannot give one section consideration without giving it to other people who came over here and built houses. I would like to exclude the latter, but I am afraid you could not.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It would seem to be a manifest injustice to those people who in the bad times did start to reconstruct and whose operations are now complete, to give no benefit whatever, whereas the man who held his hand and waited for better opportunities should get advantages which the others are deprived of.
And is only going to start now because he is going to get an advantage under this section.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The amendment before the House now is the amendment in the White Paper standing in the name of Senator Brown, with the addition in sub-clause (3) of the other different Acts he mentioned, and also the concession the Government has made, making the reduction of two-thirds. The half is extended to two-thirds. The section will read, "and shall be deemed to be reduced by two-thirds."
Will you take an amendment from me to the first subsection (a), to delete the words "April, 1920," and substitute therefore "April, 1925."
That is, to take away the retrospective portion of it.
That is the object.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I will first put the amendment, and if it is carried you can then move your amendment.
Amendment put, and, on a show of hands, declared carried.
I move: "That the words ‘April, 1920,' be deleted, and that ‘April, 1925,' be substituted therefor."
I second.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move: "Section 64. To delete the section."
On a point of order, this section was inserted after being fully discussed, and I would like to know if it is in order to invite the Seanad to reverse that decision now?
This section was not in the original Bill. The same objection could be made to other sections.
I objected long ago to decisions passed on the Committee Stage being amended on the Report Stage. It was done by the Government here, a Committee resolution amended on Report.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
In view of the fact that Section 64 was not in the Bill as orginally introduced, I will not deprive Senator Moore of the opportunity of moving the amendment now.
I venture to bring the amendment before the Seanad because the section was not in the original Bill, and is not, I understand, in accordance with the spirit of the Bill.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I hope, as you have the advantage of moving the amendment a second time, that you will not go over the whole ground again, The previous debate is within the recollection of the Seanad, so that a general statement will be enough.
The section was not in the original Bill, and it does not seem to be in accordance with the spirit of the Bill. This is not a political Bill. It has to deal with rates, public health, pensions and matters of that kind. I think if we begin in the Seanad to introduce politics into local bodies we will be doing a very wrong and a very unwise thing. I am sorry that such a section should be introduced in the Seanad, as hitherto this House has been extremely liberal in its views, much more so than the Dáil, and has done many things that the Dáil did not do, such as urging the release of prisoners. I am always proud of that record, and I am sorry that the Seanad has now, for the first time, brought in a penal section. It has accepted penal Bills sent to it from the Dáil, some of which I did not approve of, but, as far as I know, it has never introduced a penal Bill. I think this is an unfortunate step. New States, unfortunately, are often the most tyrannical. Having suffered themselves, when they gain their independence they begin to penalise others. Poland, Russia, just as France in the days of the Revolution, on getting independence, became tyrannical. I am afraid that we are drifting that way in Ireland.
Pledges had unfortunate results. We all remember the old Penal Laws Bill, which excluded a certain section from Parliament. When that was done it was said that it was not political. As time went on such measures were repealed, as it was seen that they were bad and produced only trouble. I could not go through all the pledges that we have had in this country for many years past. Pledges are really no use. The first pledge that I remember was one in which the Irish members pledged themselves not to accept any tenant-right less than Sharman Crawford's. Sharman Crawford had brought forward a Bill, and the Irish members pledged themselves to accept nothing less than what he proposed. A year afterwards, finding it impossible to get a Bill giving such terms, and being afraid of losing a Bill, which they were told they could either take or leave, the members broke their pledge. They were in a difficult position, and had either to break their pledge or injure the country. If people are in a certain position, and if they see a change in circumstances, they break their pledge. Why take a pledge that will be broken as circumstances change? A Senator who brought in the section challenged us and said that we had already taken pledges. We have, but there was no option. Nearly every Senator here objected to the pledge when it was brought in.
To which pledge does the Senator refer?
To the oath.
I would ask the Senator to speak for himself when he speaks of all objecting to it.
I mean to say a great many.
I suggest that the Senator should be more concise.
Would the Senator say which oath he means, as we have taken more than one?
I have taken only one pledge, and it is the only one I have ever taken, except in the law courts as a witness. I served for over thirty years, and was never asked to take an oath. I do not see why other people should not do the same thing. We all know what the result has been of having an oath in the Dáil. It has excluded one-third of the members, and we know that everybody regrets that. Some Senators, I darésay, do not, but there is no question that the bulk of the country does. The oath has caused us infinite trouble. It is a pledge that was not made in this country, but across the water. The pledge was taken by a number of people who supported the present Government. As time went on they began to change their minds. Some of them began to see that this Government was not the Government they thought it was.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think you are wandering a little from the amendment. I do not want to stop you, but I want you to keep more closely to the particular amendment under discussion.
I am against all political pledges, good or bad. I think they are perfectly useless. People break them as soon as they find a cause. If that is so, why take pledges? I suggest that the pledge that people are asked to take by this section is not in accordance with the Bill, and should not be put into it. Such a section could be put into the Treason Bill or some other Bill. This Bill is non-political and has nothing to do with anything except questions affecting roads, public health, pensions, etc., and an attempt should not be made to pass this section by a side-wind.
I second the amendment, not because the section is a serious one, but because it is an absurd one. I do not think it is any hardship on anyone to have to swear allegiance to the State as by law established, but I do think that it is absolutely ridiculous that the oath should be imposed on any particular set of officials if it is not imposed on the whole adult population. This was a Government amendment, and was drafted by the Government draftsman. Why had they not the courage to put it into the Bill originally, or move it during the progress of the Bill in the other House? They thought it would be unpopular in the other House, and they got it done here in what has been popularly described as "the headquarters of reaction." The Minister, if it is put in, will go back and move, in the circumstances, "That the Dáil agrees with the Seanad." The Seanad is unpopular enough already—personally I do not mind—but I do not think it should go out of its way to make itself absurd as well as unpopular. The section is not only a declaration of allegiance to the Free State, but a solemn oath:—
..... That I will bear allegiance to the Irish Free State and its Constitution as by law established, and that in the event of such appointment being ..... I will to the best of my judgment and ability duly and faithfully perform the duties of the ..... said office and will observe and obey such orders and directions in relation to such duties as shall lawfully be given to me.
If a clerk is being taken on by any county council he has to take a solemn oath that he will perform his duties. Obviously, the remedy, if he does not do so, is that he is dismissed. A Civil Service Regulation Bill was passed. Why was not this oath put into that Bill? If a profession of allegiance was wanted from the Civil Service and from people in it, that was the Bill in which it should be embodied, instead of imposing it on a particular type of official under local authorities. I think the whole thing is absolutely childish. It is a case of bold, precocious, inexperienced boys getting hold of government, rattling toy guns and tin swords and threatening the whole community. No stable government would be in favour of imposing a ridiculous and absurd test of this kind.
The amendment originally was aimed at the present occupants of posts under local authorities, but this Bill does not deal with them at all. It simply deals with a few boys who will be taken on in the future, and the whole thing is absolutely absurd and unworthy of any dignified assembly in the world. I hope that even though the Seanad has already passed this new section that it will see the folly of what it has done and will now see that it is deleted.
This section which is now under discussion was, I believe, introduced originally by one of the Senators, and, as well as I recollect, I voted against it on the Committee Stage. The arguments of Senator O'Farrell about the unpopularity or otherwise of the Seanad do not appeal to me in the least. I do not think that that is a consideration that ought to sway the judgment of men, whether their proceedings are popular or not. In any case, there is nothing in popularity. You are a hero one day, and a scoundrel the next, so that popularity really does not matter very much. The position the Seanad takes up in all its proceedings is, what it considers best in the interests of the country, and whether that attitude makes for popularity or not does not sway them in the least.
I appealed to the Seanad not to make itself absurd, as well as unpopular.
I make the Senator a present of his qualification.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think you had it double-barrelled, Senator.
Senator Colonel Moore made a rather interesting speech in moving his amendment, which might lead to debating developments, but I do not propose to follow him. He made one point which seems to me to be a very pertinent one, and that was, why single out these officials for special treatment in this matter? After all, if you are going to impose an oath or a declaration of this kind on these officials, why not make all civil servants take a similar oath or declaration? It seems to me that we are picking out these officials to take this oath or declaration, and, therefore, as far as I can see, making an invidious selection. Otherwise, I agree with Senator Colonel Moore that it is hardly worth while inserting a section of this kind in this Bill. I myself have taken some oaths. I certainly have taken a number of pledges, and I have done my best to keep them. When I took a pledge or an oath, I did so with my eyes open, and with the full understanding of what that pledge meant. The oath to which some of our fellow-countrymen in this country take exception to-day has never had any terrors for me, because in taking that oath I was engaging to do what I would have done without any oath at all: I was engaging myself to bear true allegiance to the Constitution of my country. I cannot imagine anything more despicable than the action of the individual who takes an oath or a declaration, and then does not carry that declaration conscientiously into effect.
If a public functionary can see his way to accept pay from the Government of the State, and then engage in work to undermine the State, I really do not know what category I would care to place him in. As regards this section, I am afraid we are going out of our way to do something that is quite unusual. The Government, I understand, have another Bill on the stocks and can make the terms of that measure applicable to all public functionaries. There is no reason why we should have all this talk about oaths and declarations in this country. It is usual in every country in the world to have such oaths and declarations. In the United States of America, for instance, which is supposed to be the freest nation in the world, everyone has to take an oath of allegiance to its Constitution. You cannot even become a citizen of the United States without making such a declaration. We allow people to become naturalised citizens here and we do not ask them to take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of our country—a thing which, in my opinion, we ought to do. I think there is nothing in all this bugbear about taking oaths and declarations. It is a thing that has to be done in every country in the world, and there is no reason why it should not be done here. If we come to the conclusion that officials ought to take an oath or make a declaration, then we ought not confine that to a certain class of officials, but we ought to make it compulsory for everyone in the Civil Service, and, indeed, for everyone else in the country.
I think that the Senators who have raised this discussion have shown a zeal and displayed a degree of eloquence that is worthy of a better cause. In the attitude they have taken up they have, however, been consistent, because the men who have spoken so vehemently to-day against these proposals are the very same men who spoke vehemently against every proposal that was brought forward here to deal in a firm manner with those who were attempting to tear up the foundations of the State. Senator O'Farrell described this as a Government amendment. I desire to say that it is not a Government amendment. It was introduced by me originally, and I can say that I was never approached on the matter by the Government. It was brought forward for the purpose of dealing with a scandal that existed in the county I come from, where we had an effete and obsolete county council electing men to positions who had taken up the gun in their hands and gone out to lay the country in ashes. Things had reached such a stage that the Minister had to turn down some of these appointments, and my object in having this section inserted in the Bill was to have the scandal put an end to, of having these men holding public appointments going through the country and preaching to the people the doctrine that the Free State was founded on corruption and that they and their friends would soon put an end to it. Senator O'Farrell said that the insertion of this new section was unpopular and absurd. In my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the country, it was one of the most popular things that the Seanad has done since it first assembled here. As far as I can see, the section does not penalise anyone.
People seeking these public positions will know that they will have to take this oath and make this declaration. If they do not wish to do so, then they need not, because there will be found too many people willing to come forward and comply with this requirement. I think it is a scandal that men who served their country and risked their lives in the army should now be walking about idle, while men who took up the gun and went out to lay the country in ashes should be rewarded with public positions. I do not claim that this new section will turn disloyal officials into loyal officials, but it will certainly curb their activities, just as you put a snaffle on a restive horse or a muzzle on a vicious dog. While the snaffle does not eradicate the restiveness it still tends to curb the animal, and in the same way the muzzle restrains the viciousness of the dog while not completely eradicating it. When the officials take this declaration they will not be so prone to indulge in this offensiveness to the State which has been prevailing all over the country for the past eighteen months.
I really cannot believe that the Local Government officials of the country during the last eighteen months have been filled with anxiety to tear up the Constitution. That has not been my experience of them. Senator McLoughlin must have had an unfortunate experience in Tirconaill, but what he has described does not as far as I know exist in other places. The real point to be emphasised is that this is not the place to bring in a measure of this kind. Personally, I opposed all these measures, which are a British tradition. Anyhow, if we are going to have such things we ought, as Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde said, make them apply to all branches of the Civil Service. Therefore I support Senator Colonel Moore's amendment.
Under the section, as it stands, it would be absolutely impossible for any man professing Republican ideas to sign this declaration. I do not think that this House or the Dáil have any objection to people holding Republican views, provided they hold them constitutionally. You cannot put down sedition by an Act of Parliament. It will get expression somewhere, and in some form or other. If you go to Hyde Park in London on a Sunday afternoon, you can hear as much sedition bellowed out there as it would take a Great Western train to carry away. The speeches are reported verbatim, but no one takes any notice of them. In fact, these outbursts are recognised as a very salutary vent for that class of hogwash. I must also confound to some extent the experience which Senator McLoughlin has had in his own constituency. I have personal knowledge of officials who hold republican views, and if they were to take advantage of the information which they derive from the positions they hold they could undermine the State, do considerable damage and inflict enormous expense on the ratepayers of the country. But these officials are still in office.
I always held that we should not penalise a man because of his political views. There are republicans who are absolutely sincere in their views— some of them, at least. I have met some of them myself, and I am satisfied that if these men were given a position under any local authority they would discharge their duties faithfully. Some of these men that I have met are absolutely sincere, and I know from the whole character and tenor of their lives that they would be absolutely good officials. From a sense of honour they would not do anything contrary to what is implied in the taking up of a public position.
The first implication to be taken in the case of a man accepting an appointment is that he would act loyally in that position, that he would not do anything to injure his employer, that he would carry out in a proper manner the duties assigned to him and appertaining to that position. I would suggest to Senator Colonel Moore—I hope the Government will fall in with the suggestion—that in order to overcome the objection raised by his amendment, the declaration in the section, instead of reading "I, the said A.B., do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare that I will bear allegiance to the Irish Free State and its Constitution," should read, "I, the said A.B., will not use my position for the purpose of injuring the Free State or undermining the Constitution," etc. A man with republican views could take the declaration if altered to read in that way, and there are many of them who, if elected to public positions, would, I am certain, give good, loyal service.
You cannot, I suggest, constrain a man to renounce his political views and you should not penalise him for holding such views. We do not want in any way to penalise a man for holding his views honestly and in a constitutional way. It would be a very bad thing to attempt to do that. Prior to the signing of the Treaty a number of us, perhaps, held very extreme views, but since the signing of the Treaty our views have become somewhat modified. These are my views on the matter, and I hope that Senator McLoughlin will agree to the substitution which I have suggested. I hope, too, that Senator Colonel Moore will agree.
I am quite willing to accept the amendment in the form suggested by Senator Kenny.
I am sorry I cannot agree to the alteration suggested by Senator Kenny.
There were some statements made in the course of this debate I want to refer to. For instance it seemed to be generally accepted that Civil Servants have to take a pledge, and the only reason it was not in the Civil Service Act is because we have power to enforce it without putting it in. But when you are dealing with local authorities it is necessary to put in a provision of this particular kind specifically. I was very disappointed at the attitude of Senator O'Farrell. I consider it was a very mean way of dealing with this matter. He, more or less by innuendo, alleged that the Minister responsible was afraid to bring forward this legislation in the Dáil.
Is it in order to say a Senator has done a mean thing? Is it Parliamentary?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think it is unparliamentary.
At all events I must say I was surprised at the way the Senator put the thing. In the Dáil we have had to take very difficult decisions in the past when the position seemed to us to justify them. We had to stand over the execution of very dear friends when it was our duty to do so, and we certainly would not be intimidated by the possibilities that might arise from passing any measure however drastic. And this is not very drastic. The same testimony is due to the Seanad. In very dangerous times they stood manfully to their guns. The private houses of some Senators were burned down, and many were threatened, but they did not flinch, so that I think this argument is not going to count for much. This amendment was brought forward by Senator McLoughlin. It was he himself suggested it. Everybody in touch with local bodies in the country knows the difficulties of the present situation. You had men going out in arms against the Government, breaking down bridges and doing everything in their power to wreck the finances and the whole strength and stability of the country. These men have, for one reason or another been elected to positions under local authorities, and in very many cases these individuals are using their position and influence and prestige, which they get from being in these positions, to injure the very Government that protects them in their office. I do not pretend to believe that this amendment will in all respects be watertight. If a man is sufficiently dishonest he can take an oath or a pledge to the Constitution and at the same time work to undermine it, and be prepared to overthrow it by armed force. But there is one thing it will do. It will weaken that man's prestige in dealing with other people. The obvious retort to men of that kind who seek to build up an organisation against the State is, "why have you taken a position under that particular Government? Why accept their money?" And if he has not got sufficient faith in his own political opinions to give up that salary or remuneration nobody is going to have very much faith in his political opinions whatever they may be. In order to secure the stability of the country it is absolutely necessary that we should have confidence in our servants, whether civil servants or servants under local authorities possessing such great powers. I would be very much surprised if the Seanad stultified itself now by undoing what it has already done on the Committee Stage.
I might answer the Minister very readily by reminding him of the pledges that he and his colleagues have taken and have broken, and were perhaps right in breaking— I do not question that, because there are circumstances when it is better to break a pledge than to obey it, as, for instance, when the circumstances render it wrong to obey. That would apply to many people as well as to Ministers. But Ministers pledge themselves to things that they are now trying to undo. I think it is better not to argue upon these lines any more. I am willing to accept Senator Kenny's amendment. I think it is reasonable and fair that people should not use their position for the purpose of upsetting the state of things that brought them in. I know republicans doing their work steadily and honestly in certain affairs. They keep strictly within the limits of what they ought to do although they are republicans and would not think of bringing into their business any other spirit. That is an honest and straight way of acting, and that is what Senator Kenny suggests. I should be glad, therefore, to move my amendment with the change he suggests.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Does the Senator wish to withdraw his amendment and to accept in lieu of it the amendment suggested by Senator Kenny?
Yes.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I will put Senator Moore's amendment, and then if Senator Kenny wishes to move his I will give him an opportunity.
Amendment to delete Section 64 put and negatived.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Does Senator Kenny wish to move his amendment?
In view of the statement made by the Minister I do not propose to move my amendment.
May I ask what the position now is?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The position is that your amendment is rejected and Senator Kenny declines to move his.
I beg to move amendment 54:—
New section. Before Section 65 to insert a new section as follows:—
65.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act issue an order with the consent of the Minister for Finance regulating the salary and fees, if any, to be paid to all persons appointed after the passing of this Act by local bodies to the service of such local bodies, taking into consideration the amount of work to be done in each case.
The object of the amendment is that the Minister shall, as soon as this Bill passes, draw up a scale of fees for clerks of county councils. I have got here a document which was drawn up and laid before the Dáil giving the salaries and the fees of clerks of different county councils and I must say it astonishes me very much. It is a most extraordinary document. It varies so much from county to county that one is amazed how such a state of things comes about. There seems to have been no consideration given to the matter. In some counties the clerk gets £1,000 salary and no fees. In other counties it is different. In the County Mayo the salary is only £160 which, of course, is absurd, but it is made up by the clerk drawing a whole heap of fees which raises his salary from £160 to £1,300. The comparison is simply ridiculous. £160 a year is an absurd salary, and £1,300 is a good deal too much.
May I ask Senator Col. Moore whether the gentleman with the £1,000 a year salary has fees as well?
No; it seems to be balanced in some degree. The man with the small fees draws a salary and several fees. Here is one: County Louth, the clerk has £690 all told; in County Longford, £450; in Mayo, as I have stated, £1,300; Galway, £1,900. The clerk gets £800 salary, £150 as clerk in connection with Diseases of Animals Act, £10 as clerk to the Pensions Committee, £1,246 for preparing the franchise list, and £418 for the jurors' list. He says his salary is reduced by £708, which he pays for clerical assistance. When I look down the list of the other counties I find that some men have a salary of £708 and some have only £120. Why should one county pay £780 to the clerk and other counties only pay £120? The whole thing is made up of such a mixing of fees and other matters that it is quite inequitable. In Waterford County they seem to me to have acted in a sensible way. They gave what they thought was a proper salary, and that was inclusive. All fees went to the county council. They pay what seems to be the rather small salary of £475, I daresay it is enough. I do not criticise them at all.
What about Cork?
In Cork the salary is £450, but it amounts with the addition of fees to £1,640; the clerks take £350 for expenses. In Cavan the clerks only ask for £20. Why should one man require £700 and another only £20? The whole thing seems to me to be in a regular tangle. I am not altogether in favour of handing over everything to the Minister, but I think that this state of affairs justifies some sort of system and order. Some counties are large, some are small. They can be adjusted; but some sort of an arrangement should be made, and I would leave it to the Minister to adjust these things.
I expect the anomalies that Senator Colonel Moore calls attention to arise in this way. Under the 1898 Act of the old regime, they drew fees under various heads in addition to their position as secretary to the county council and by virtue of that position. Under the 1898 Act these perquisites were preserved to them. The result was that if you had to pension these officers, the Act, or those who framed it, took good care that they had to be pensioned on a liberal scale. In Waterford we had very expensive officials. The secretary of the county council was a very highly-paid officer. As a result of his death we were able to effect a saving there, and, when appointing the man who took his place, we appointed him on the basis that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health has advised. That is, they have advised all public bodies that when an opportunity occurs and a new appointment is to be made, that the salary shall be an inclusive salary. That must be done in future. You cannot get rid of many of these officers without having to bear the expense of pensioning them. You have, accordingly, to allow them to remain on until they reach the age limit, or until some mishap, such as death or sickness, befalls them. In the latter event they would have to resign. It is only in the event of these contingencies that the council would have an opportunity of adjusting the position.
It is a very good thing that there should be a fixed scale of pay marked out for every officer under the local authorities. There should be a minimum and a maximum salary, and then when a man is going for one of these positions he knows exactly what his minimum and his maximum will be, and he knows that if he gives faithful service, in the course of a certain number of years he would reach his maximum, and he would know how much it would be and on what scale it would be calculated. He knows, then, the limits within which his services are to be remunerated, and I take it to be the intention of the Local Government, so far as I understand it in the matter of local appointments, that some amendment like this should be passed.
I think the word absurd could be correctly applied to this amendment because the Minister in his office here in Dublin will not be in a position to decide whether the person appointed by the local authorities to carry on the work is, or is not, an efficient officer. Everyone knows that the proper people to pronounce on the efficiency of an officer of a local authority are the people on the spot. I think it will be admitted that there are good and bad officers. Some of the county surveyors are excellent officers; there may be others who are not excellent officers. The idea that you are to give the Minister power to say what the salary of an officer should be is perfectly absurd. As a matter of fact under the existing law—I speak subject to correction—the Minister has power, if he believes that the salary is exorbitant, to refuse to sanction it. I do know that in certain cases the Minister has refused to sanction salaries passed for certain officials in Dublin. If the Minister has that power what is the need for this amendment? I, personally, think it is perfectly absurd. I do not know whether the Senator refers to workmen or not.
Clerks of the county councils I am speaking of.
It says, "The Minister may as soon as may be" and so on in the case "of all persons appointed." It does not say clerks. So I take it that the Minister will regulate what the wages of the other employees of the Board are to be before he sanctions them.
I made a mistake myself. I was referring to that particular document, and I meant clerks. Perhaps I was wrong.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
But your amendment speaks of "regulating the salaries and fees to be paid to all persons," by the local bodies. There is no reference to clerks at all.
I do not think it is a wise amendment. It will lead to extravagance and to mechanical standardisation by headquarters, and it minimises very much the responsibility of the local authorities. If a local authority can get a good man at a certain price why should they not be allowed to do so? The whole thing is centralisation overdone, and undermining the responsibilities of those who were elected to do a certain work.
I presume Colonel Moore means that this rule applies to new appointments. I do not see how it could apply to existing officers.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It could not. The amendment says "appointed after the passing of this Act."
I do not agree with some of the Senators who have spoken on this question. I think the time has almost come when there should be something done in the way of standardisation or co-ordination of salaries paid to local officials. Speaking generally, I did not interfere very much in the course of this debate, although I spent a great many years actively engaged in the administration of Local Government. The reason I did not interfere was because I was anxious to expedite the passing of the Bill. Reference has been made by Senator Farren to the capacity of the Local Government Department. He seems to think that the Local Government Department would not be well qualified to appraise either the services of the local officials or to estimate them at their proper value. I cannot agree with him in that respect. I think our Local Government Department is one of the best departments we have. I have always held that view. In the old days, when I had a little knowledge of the Local Government Board as a practical working Department, I had formed the opinion that it was a board that could not be beaten in efficiency I have had much experience of the English Local Government and I must say that the Local Government Board in Ireland was much better than the Local Government Board in England. I say now that the Department is following in the footsteps of its predecessors and it is doing its best under extraordinary difficulties to carry out properly, efficiently and economically the administration of the country. I do not know anyone better qualified to appraise the value of the work, and fix a fair salary for that work for local authorities, than the Local Government Department. I think it would be well if some steps were taken to co-ordinate the salaries in the different counties. We are not a rich country. We are not like the English people, and we cannot afford an extravagant system of Local Government. My experience of our system of Local Government is that it might be more economical, and in some directions, I think, might be made more efficient. I certainly would be in favour of giving the Minister power to regulate the salaries of officials who are being appointed to new appointments. Old officials, of course, we could not touch. They have got their rights to pensions, but in the matter of new officials the Local Government Department might turn their attention to fixing proper salaries.
To meet the point that this seems to be an arbitrary amendment going over the heads of the local authorities, I have consulted the mover and he is satisfied that there should be this addition to meet that:—
"The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, and after consultation with the local bodies concerned, issue an Order."
I am not quite sure what Senator Colonel Moore means by the amendment, whether he intends it only to apply to clerks, or whether it is intended also to apply to others. As inserted in the Paper, of course, it is very wide. I believe it will probably include other employees as well as officers. Under the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, I have power to fix the salaries of important officers, including those of county secretaries. I have adopted the grading scale for county secretaries throughout the country according to the importance of the position. Naturally, a county secretary in Dublin would be more important, and would deserve a higher salary than a similar officer in County Louth. I have to take that into consideration in fixing salaries. I have sanctioned several appointments and fixed their salaries since I became Minister for Local Government, and we have in no case allowed the salary to go over £1,000. Heretofore the arrangement was different. An officer might be getting a small salary, but with emoluments and perquisites his income might amount to a considerable sum. The county secretary of Galway gets £1,900, which is most unreasonable. Of course I have no power to interfere with existing salaries, but in future I will insist on having an inclusive salary, which will get rid of these anomalies that Senator Colonel Moore has pointed out. I am adopting a similar policy with regard to dispensary doctors, fixing a minimum and a maximum salary. In some cases the salaries vary according to the counties and the work to be done.
My experience of local government was that when any new office was created it was swallowed up by the county secretary and the salary went to him. The county secretary practically built up a salary for himself. I suggest to the Minister that when any new appointment is being made the county secretary should not be allowed to seize it. It is unfair that one person should have a multiplicity of appointments. No such class of persons should have a salary of £1,700 or £1,800 a year. That is too much.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That does not arise under this amendment.
Of course if the Minister has already the power there is no use in my bringing this forward.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Not only that, but he says he has been actually exercising it.
I do not know. On looking at this list I find that the County Secretary for Dublin has £1,500 a year, as a matter of fact, though the Minister said that no one was getting over £1,000.
That is the highest. What about South Tipperary?
It is mixed up in the same way. In Tipperary he has £600 in salary, but he gets a lot in fees —£150 for the franchise list, £85 more for the jurors, and so on.
What year was that?
This is a document which was presented to Dáil Eireann. It is a return showing the total of emoluments and salaries of Secretaries of county councils from all public sources compiled from returns supplied by those officials. It is dated, but evidently it means up to date. I am sure the Minister will take into consideration the question of these fees, which seem to vary to such an extent that in one case alone, without the franchise, they are £1,300.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Minister said he would insist in the case of every new appoinment on an inclusive salary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
Section 65, sub-section (5), page 31. Before this sub-section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5) If within three months and not less than one month before the date of holding elections for county councils or corporate bodies the Minister receives a request from local government electors numbering not less than twenty per cent. of the electorate or from twenty per cent. of the members of the county council or corporate body asking that a commissioner be appointed to manage the affairs of the said body, the Minister shall on the day of election cause a poll to be taken on that question and a special voting paper (in addition to the usual voting paper) in accordance with Schedule VIII. shall be handed to each voter. And if a majority of the people voting declare in favour of a commissioner the election of councillors shall be null and void and the Minister shall appoint a commissioner who shall hold office until the next triennial election."
This matter was discussed on the Committee Stage, and one objection to the taking of a poll or referendum was the extra cost. If this amendment passes the extra cost would be very little beyond the printing of an additional voting paper, and if the electors of any county area, or of any city, wish to have a commissioner I do not see why they should not.
I second the amendment.
In practice I do not think it would be possible to put this into operation, or, at least, that it would operate very satisfactorily. Take the town of Balbriggan, where this would mean that you would require six papers. You would want papers for the election of town commissioners, for rural district councillors, and for county councillors, and as well as that you would want three commissioners for each of these offices. The whole thing would be very difficult to put into practice, and I think it would be very hard to get candidates for election to local authorities if the alternative was there, as to whether there should be such a thing as local representatives or not. It would be contrary to the dignity of a man to go up under such conditions. You would get very few men of any consequence to do so unless the straight issues were there as to whether they, or some other candidates, would be elected. If you drag in some side issue in this way you will find it very difficult to get candidates to come forward.
Amendment put and declared lost.
A count was called for.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The House is equally divided on this matter. Under these circumstances inasmuch as this is what I might call a novelty— I am not pronouncing any other opinion on it—and a new departure in the Bill I must vote against it.
Amendment declared lost.
I move:—
Section 65, sub-section (5), page 31, line 23. After the word "held" to insert the words "(Unless at least six months prior to the date of such election a memorial has been received by the Minister signed by at least one-fourth of the electors on the register asking that a referendum be taken, confined to registered local government electors in that area, as to whether the existing administration should be continued for a further period of three years; in which case a referendum shall forthwith be taken and the costs thereof be defrayed in the same manner as the costs of the election)."
I do not know if this amendment can be considered a novelty or not, but the spirit in which it is proposed is the same as in the case of Senator Butler. This amendment is similar to the idea embodied in that proposed by Senator Barrington in Committee, which was rejected by a small majority. It is briefly this, that if after the experience of two or three years of the administration of a commissioner the ratepayers are desirous of continuing his services they should have the opportunity and the right to say whether they want him or not. In order to make it clear to the House I think it would be advisable to read the commencement of the sub-section to which the amendment refers:—
(5) Not later than three years after a local authority has been dissolved under this section, the Minister shall by order cause a new election of members of such local authority to be held.
That is where the amendment would be inserted. Senator Barrington's amendment was criticiséd, because it would interfere with the rights of democracy, but surely there is nothing undemocratic in this. Every lover of democratic institutions, I should say, desires that the opinion emanating from the ballot-box should be an educated opinion. I see that Mr. de Valera's new policy is what he terms a mental revolution. That, I think, embodies the idea of education. Surely there is no better teacher than experience, and if, after two or three years' experience of the administration of a commissioner it is discovered that he has carried out his work efficiently, economically, and to the interests of the ratepayers, surely the ratepayers should have a voice in saying whether he should be continued or not. Some Senators voted against Senator Barrington's amendment, not on the question of principle but because of the difficulty of understanding what the cost would be, and if it was costly, on whose shoulders the cost would lie. Another objection was because of a doubt as to what new lease of life would be given to a commissioner as a result of a referendum in favour of his continuance in office. This amendment specifically states that he shall be appointed for three years if the voters on a referendum desire his continuance, and I think that, considering that it would require twenty-five per cent. of the registered electors to claim by memorial that such a referendum should be held, it is clear that in such a case there would be a serious and well-considered reason for taking such a referendum. I think the Seanad would be well advised to consider the points that I have put forward, and I hope that it will pass the amendment.
I beg to second the amendment. On Second Reading I gave my reasons for believing in commissioners, and I will not repeat them.
I regret that I have to oppose this amendment. If the previous amendment was objectionable I think this is more so, because, if I mistake not, this amendment refers to cases like County Kerry, where there is a Commissioner at present, and provides that, after the lapse of three years, the voters should be asked if such a county should be placed in the same position for a further term of three years. Some strong criticism has been expressed in regard to the apathy that obtains throughout the country amongst voters who refuse to vote for candidates at these elections. That is a fear which exists, especially in the neighbourhood of Dublin at present, and if different parts of Ireland are to be excluded from the privilege of having these elections periodically I think that apathv will grow, with most injurious effects. It is well that throughout the twenty-six counties, the electors from time to time should have the privilege of expressing their opinions on public questions. I, therefore, oppose the amendment.
This amendment pre-supposes that there should be two modes of carrying on local government, one by an elected body and the other by a commissioner. I hope that in a very short time something will come in between the two, whereby the rights of the electors to exercise the franchise will be retained, even though after that body is elected, they hand over the administration to paid people. That would come in between the two, and would be quite different, but personally I could never vote for the maintenance of a pure commission and nothing else. The franchise is there, and I think it should be availed of, and I think those elected at all events should have the power to strike a rate. It is in the administration of that in the past that fault has been found with, and I do believe that Senator Nesbitt should wait awhile. I think this amendment is premature, because all these things are in the making, and those who are very keenly interested in these matters believe that in the future administration will take a different shape to what is has done in the past, and different, too, to the purely commission method as we know it in the City of Dublin.
I wish to support this amendment. While I am in favour of people exercising the franchise I do not think this amendment takes away the power of the franchise from them. They will be asked to vote on a particular issue and the whole community concerned will say whether or not they like the commissioner. That takes no freedom from them as far as I can see. The only thing is that you limit the issue to a particular one, and those who do not like it can vote against it. They have, therefore, their freedom of exercising the franchise.
I do not care to accept this amendment any more than the previous one. As Senator Mrs. Wyse-Power pointed out, it is a rather invidious thing to accept commissioners who have only been appointed as a temporary and emergency measure. Later on it may be found expedient to adopt the policy of commissioners throughout the country, but in doing so it will be necessary to safeguard the interests of the people who have the right of exercising the franchise and to have some sort of combined system whereby the body is managed by an expert administrator while at the same time preserving the right of the franchise for the public. I think if we accepted a later amendment which is down in the name of Senator Linehan, whereby the county council itself, with the sanction of the Minister, could appoint a commissioner, it would serve this purpose better. I would be prepared to accept that in a modified form. At the present moment the commissioners are mostly officials of my own Department whom I can badly spare, and I would be very loth to leave them in control of public bodies for an indefinite period, even if the electors of these particular areas were in favour of it themselves.
It is merely as I say a temporary difficulty, and I do not wish to stereotype it, and for that reason I ask that this amendment should not be accepted.
The two weaknesses of the present position are that we are here to exercise the franchise of the people as a whole. Local authorities are elected on the same principle as we are elected here and as members are elected in the Dáil. This privilege should not be filched from them. The present position is that it places too much patronage in the hands of the commissioner. The people whose taxes and rates are expended by the official the Minister sees fit to appoint have no voice at all in his appointment. Patronage should not be in the hands of any man, and it is too much temptation to put in the hands of a Minister. The Minister can dissolve any of those local bodies functioning in the Free State and put in any of his friends. That is a temptation. I do not mean any innuendo as to the present Government to which the Minister belongs. It may so happen that these commissioners may see fit to hold up progressive measures in contemplation by a local body prior to the appointment of the commissioners in order to prove how economical their administration has been, and how they are able to reduce the rates. People may rise in rebellion at that. Local labour men who were expecting employment under the schemes adumbrated may arise in rebellion. The commissioners may be barring the natural progress, and it should be open to the people to have some court of appeal in order to alter the position. I take it that this amendment wishes to introduce into the Bill means by which the people in certain circumstances can get machinery into operation for the purpose of bettering the position.
Amendment put, and on a show of hands, declared lost.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The following amendment is proposed by the Government to meet amendment 57, in the name of Senator Linehan:—
(1) A county or borough council may with the consent of the Minister delegate to such person or persons as the Minister shall from time to time appoint for the purpose, all or any part of its powers, duties and functions (including all or any of the powers, duties and functions of a board of health) and such powers, duties and functions shall thereupon be exercised and performed by such person or persons until the holding of the next triennial election of county councillors.
(2) The remuneration of any person appointed under this section shall be paid as part of the general expenses of such council.
I propose to accept it.
Amendment put and agreed to.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
As the Minister for Finance is here, we shall adjourn the Report Stage of the Local Government Bill.