Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Feb 1926

Vol. 6 No. 8

PUBLIC BODIES ORDER, 1925. - MOTION BY SENATOR SIR JOHN KEANE (RESUMED).

"That the Order entitled The Public Bodies Order, 1925, which was laid on the Table of this House on the 7th day of January, 1926, shall be and is hereby annulled."

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (Mr. Burke)

At the last sitting Senator Sir John Keane indulged in various criticisms of the administration of my Department, dealing particularly with the Public Bodies Order, 1925. That criticism falls under four headings. Under the first heading comes the criticism of Article 3 of that Order. Senator Sir John Keane maintains that this particular Article means, in effect, the stultification of the Oireachtas, because it is an essential condition of putting this Order into effect that it should be laid for a certain length of time upon the Tables of the two Houses. He contends that if I can change that Order afterwards, without tabling the amendment or the alteration, in the same way before the two Houses, it really renders the position of the Oireachtas very invidious. I think that the Senator overstated the case on that occasion. It is true that there have been certain changes made, but I have no power to alter this Order according to my own sweet will by any means. The Order is specific and definite and I have only a certain dispensing power. In particular cases where it is found that the Order does not suit the particular cases, this Article 3 gives me the power to dispense a particular local authority, if it so desires, from the Order. That is, in so far as the Order might be unsuitable. But I have no power to vary the Order. If I never issued an Order the local authority would have complete powers to carry on, and it is only a reversion to the former conditions if I do not press or insist on the Order being applied.

Article 3 is very necessary. When you have to deal with a great number of local authorities, it is very hard to devise a system of accounts that will be equally applicable and suitable to all; and occasionally difficulties arise which will make it necessary to have the power of dispensing on particular occasions. This Article is not a new departure by any means. There was a similar Article in every Accounts Order issued since the Local Government Board came into being, and it has, in fact, been taken, word for word, from the Public Bodies Order, 1904. Cases arise continually that I cannot anticipate, and these cases make it necessary to have this power. For example, if a local authority had not for any reason struck a rate before the 1st March, that local authority could not strike a rate at all for that year, if I had not that dispensing power.

It is easy to see the difficult position the local authority would be placed in if this power were not given, and for that reason I think it is reasonable to ask the Seanad to allow this old-established article to continue, and it is more necessary in the present time when the whole machinery of Local Government is changed. The second criticism is of more importance; that is the criticism of Form 52. That arises in this way: There was an amendment moved here when the Local Government Bill was going through the Seanad, and I do not think that Senator Sir John Keane is in a position to throw any stones at this particular matter, because if he is not actually the causant he is the causa sine qua non in the matter, because he seconded the amendment which brought about all the trouble. The amendment was considered by my officials and myself, and we amended it in some particulars, and in its present state it was finally carried here in the Seanad. But in our anxiety to oblige the Senator we overlooked the great trouble that this was going to give to the various local authorities responsible for striking rates in the country. It undoubtedly throws a great deal more applotting work on the various local authorities. It makes it necessary to show on each demand note the actual amount in each particular case that is being demanded in respect of road services.

At the time we overlooked the fact that it was going to give us so much trouble. The law stands that way at present, and I have no power to alter it. Even if Senator Moore was anxious to give me power to break through the Act of Parliament I do not think I could very well do it. In giving effect to that particular amendment we issued an Order which went slightly further, by showing not merely the cost of road maintenance in a particular case, but also the cost in respect of various other essential services. This was really unnecessary. It derives its sanction from the Order, whereas the others derive their sanction from the Act itself. Accordingly, by availing of Article 3, which the Senator criticised, I have been able to relieve local authorities of important additional work connected with the working of the different services. The actual amount for the roads must stand until I have an opportunity of bringing in an amending Bill to the Local Government Act. Probably all parties will be in favour of that amendment when I bring it forward. I will not have time to do so before the present rate is struck.

The Senator also criticised the method of accounting for road expenditure, and in particular for materials, prescribed by Article 58. I thought that Article would be particularly acceptable to the Senator because it went a long way towards carrying out views he has frequently expressed in the Seanad. The Article goes into detail considerably more than is usual in such accounts. I think it gives the Senator practically everything he desired. It is necessary to show in that form of account the amount expended on each particular road. The rates are segregated and against each particular road is set out the cost of material, of machinery, and of labour. It is not a fact that in each particular case the cost of the machinery or the material is averaged for the whole county. If, say, a road or a section of a road called No. 1. is under consideration against that is set out the cost of machinery employed on it. If you have a steam-roller working on that road for 50 hours at a cost of, say, 10/- an hour, which would be, approximately, the cost of a steam-roller, then you set against that £25. In the same way, if you take material from different sources the cost of material, from each particular source is put down. For example, you may take material from two quarries. The material from quarry "A " may be purchased at 10/- a ton, and material from quarry "B" at £1 a ton. In each case you have to set out the number of tons of material taken from the particular quarry, or otherwise the account would not be in order. It is very difficult to explain clearly a technical matter of this kind without actually being able to demonstrate with figures. I think if Senator Keane looks carefully into the matter he will see that is the fact.

The Senator brings forward a constructive proposal of his own, but as in the other case, I do not think he has given it very careful consideration. His solution of the difficulty is, that we should allow 25 counties to continue as they are, without issuing any Public Bodies Order. The Senator must realise that the Public Bodies Order that was in force before this Order came into effect, was devised to meet a totally different set of circumstances, and for Local Government machinery which included the rural district councils. It would be impossible to administer the present Local Government system with the old Local Bodies Order. Not only does this replace the previous Local Bodies Order; it also replaces the Procedure of Councils Order which deals with procedure in connection with public works. If the Senator peruses the Procedure of Councils Order he will see that it would be absolutely impossible to fit it in with the new arrangement. The present Order is working very satisfactorily in the country. It is not perfect. It is a very difficult thing to devise at short notice an Order dealing with the whole work of local government, and to make sure that it will in all respects be watertight. On the whole, the Order is working with very great satisfaction.

I am not at all opposed to helpful criticism, but, at the same time I think very little good can come out of vague, general criticisms of this kind. If we are to arrive at any useful solution this is a matter that we must go into in considerable detail. If the Senator brings forward a pamphlet or brochure showing his solution of the various problems that confront us in this matter I will be prepared to give it careful consideration. At the present time this Order is the best we can devise and it has fulfilled its purpose extremely well.

Mr. MOLLOY

I am aware that there was an amendment put forward to Article 52 to set out the amount of the rates and that it would be placed on the back of the demand note. I understand the added cost of doing that in the different counties will be from £100 to £300, and also, that the particulars which will be on the back of the demand note will be supplied to each Civic Guard station. That will entail another demand from the taxpayer. With regard to Article 57, the Senator brought forward what I considered a constructive proposal about the roads. Anyone who travels through the West of Ireland now would imagine there was no such thing at all as roads. The countryside is a swamp.

I do not think the present system of road-making will be a success or come to any pitch of perfection unless there is a road fund, or some other fund, to be drawn on besides the present method of taxing the people for road maintenance. The ordinary person in the country with a horse and car claims that the road is good enough for him. What he wants to know is, why he is to pay 3d., 4d. or 6d. in the £ to keep roads in perfect condition for motor lorries weighing 3, 4, or 6 tons, and that compel him to keep towards the dyke? I think the Minister or the Government will have to take the steps that were taken by the Northern Government, and tax lorries so that they will pay for the damage that they do to the roads. It is hardly fair to taxpayers who own horses and cars that they should have to pay for the upkeep of roads for 8-ton lorries. I would ask the Minister to look into the matter and try and devise some constructive method, besides taxing the ratepayers, for keeping the roads.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I did not think for a moment that the Minister would consent to annul this Order, but, as I said when proposing the motion, it is the only constitutional method one has of criticising the Order as a whole. In spite of the Minister's explanation, it still seems anomalous that the Minister may limit his power of variation. He has absolute power to depart from the Order as he wishes. The Minister for Finance, through his Exchequer, has absolute power to print notes. He may not do it, of course, but it is a dangerous possibility for the Minister to be able to alter this Order, which has received the sanction of Parliament in a definite form. Article 52 was revised before its final introduction into the Bill. It was reviewed by the Parliamentary draftsman. It was never my intention in seconding it that it should take the form it did. What object is there in knowing the particulars of each demand note? What the ratepayer wants to know, and what he is told certainly in London, and, I think, in other places, is the ingredients of the total amount demanded. Say, the total rate struck in an area is £100,000, how much is spent on the roads, debt charges, and so on? There is one calculation for the one area, and it is printed once on the back of every demand note. I do not see how by legal subtleties this extra work is involved, which the Minister admits is involved. This is a technical matter. I am prepared to have it tested by a qualified accountant that the forms and instructions, as drawn, will not give accurate information as to the cost or expense of machinery. It is simply the total amount which will be divided up and there will be an account shown. In order to get the necessary information for the road the county surveyor will have to devise separate accounts altogether from those official accounts. That would involve extra labour, whereas the special account could have been embodied in the Order. I do not know whether the Minister is quite clear in regard to my constructive suggestion. I am satisfied that this present Order, which is going to remain, should be allowed to run. That will not affect the suggestion that one county should be taken outside it and that a real live system, proved by actual experiment, should be allowed to develop in that county. Let it run and the only way you will be able to devise a practical method will be by trial and error. It will take time, but however expert people who sit in a room may be, they cannot devise a system which will work properly. You can by actual experiment build up a system. You can try something the first year; by experience you can amend it, and gradually after three years' experience you will evolve a workable and efficient system of accounting control. Having brought that and satisfied yourself that it is working properly, you can make that the subject of a new substituted Accounts Order. I do not see how that fails to be a constructive suggestion.

There is one other matter, and that is one important respect in which the control of the Central Authority failed. In all accounts of great detail, such as the appointment of nurses and substitutes, we are continually met by the veto, of the Local Government Department when the sum involved may only be £1 or £2. Yet in the all-important respect of under-estimating, appearently local authorities are allowed to do what they like. Anyone who reads the paper can see the grave difficulties into which many of these county councils have got with their banks. That has been the result of a policy of under-estimating expenditure and over-estimating the grants-in-aid likely to be received for the last three years. It was specially stressed last year when the councils were going out of office, and they have landed their successors in a large deficit which in the case of one county I know would be 4/- in the £ in addition to the extra cost for the debts of the past. As far as I can see, there is no regulation or method by which the local authority can ensure that a sufficient rate is struck. The rate is first struck by the local authority, and not until after it is struck does the Department of Local Government know what the amount is. I think if they are to control in such detail they should control that very important point and ensure that local authorities be liable for the current year for all the charges arising in that year, and that they should not be allowed to pile up deficits which are creating a serious position throughout the country. Having made my protest, I shall now ask the leave of the House to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I received an intimation from Senator Sir John Keane resigning his place as a member of the Committee on Procedure. It is important that that Committee should be up to its full strength, and, I understand, there is a meeting this afternoon, and it will take into consideration the question of filling this vacancy.

With regard to the business, there is a certain amount of work for to-morrow if it is the wish of the House to sit. That business is the further stages of any Bills that we did not definitely conclude to-day. In addition there are two new Bills that will come in—one; the Statistics Bill, and the other the Police Forces Amalgamation Bill. That would be our total bill of fare for to-morrow, and, although it is one that cannot occupy much time, it is desirable, I think, that we should clear these matters as they come along, and, therefore, unless there is serious opposition on the part of a substantial body in the House, I would ask that we should meet to-morrow and that we should sit in the forenoon, so as to meet the convenience of Senators who come a long way and who may be anxious to get home by an evening train. It is not so hard upon Senators who, like myself, live in the vicinity of this House. If it is the wish of the House we might meet to-morrow at 12 o'clock.

Mr. GUINNESS

Is there any possibility of other Bills being sent up to us?

CATHAOIRLEACH

Not to-morrow.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I understand the Land Bill was passed to-day, and if there is no amendment it could come before us.

Sir JOHN KEANE

The suggestion of meeting in the forenoon is not agreeable in all quarters of the House.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Any further Bills that might come in would not be for discussion to-morrow, as three days would not have expired from the receipt of them by this House.

Mr. O'CONNOR

I suggest that I o'clock would be better, as there is the cattle market on to-morrow, and many Senators would be detained there during the forenoon.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I hope the House will fix a definite hour for its sittings, and, as far as possible, keep to it. It is almost impossible to arrange for Committees, and to attend them if the House meets at 12 o'clock in the day. If we have to adopt an hour to suit the sittings of certain Committees, at one time, and attendance at the cattle market, and so on at others, nobody will be satisfied in the end. We should keep to our Standing Orders and meet at 3 o'clock, except in cases of very special emergency.

Mr. HAUGHTON

We greatly appreciate what has fallen from the Cathaoirleach, and many of us hope that his suggestion will be adhered to.

CATHAOIRLEACH

On this matter I am entirely guided by what I consider to be the feeling of Senators generally. I do not attach very much importance to the point made by Senator Douglas in exceptional cases. Where you have a fag end of business to conclude, I do not think it really matters what hour of the day you take it up. I never would suggest an hour of meeting that would inconvenience a substantial section of the House. I only threw out the suggestion of meeting in the forenoon in view of the comparatively unimportant matters that will come before the House to-morrow, and I thought that meeting at the earlier hour would be for the convenience of country members.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I do not object at all to fixing the permanent sittings of the House for 12 o'clock, or any other time. My only point is that it is customary for every Parliament in the world to have some special hour for meeting, so that its members may make arrangements in other respects when their attendance is not required.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Even if you fix an hour there must be occasions arise when the good sense of the House would sometimes find it necessary to make a change for a particular purpose. I do not believe you could make a hard and fast rule that you must always meet at three o'clock. Occasions will arise when the House should meet at another hour. It is a matter of perfect indifference to me. I will come here at any hour you tell me.

Sir JOHN KEANE

Could we not compromise. I understand the train that Senators would have to catch would not leave until 5 o'clock. Could we not say 2 o'clock then for the hour of meeting?

Mrs. WYSE POWER

I agree with Senator Douglas that a fixed time for our meeting is better than a variable hour. Committees are fixed, sometimes on the days that we meet here. There is an important meeting of the House Accommodation Committee to-morrow at 10.30, when applications from certain sections asking for accommodation will be discussed. The hour of that Committee was fixed in view of the meeting of the House at 3 o'clock, and therefore I think we should stick to 3 o'clock.

Mr. BARRINGTON

May I point out that a great deal of the business done by the Oireachtas is done in Committees. Senator Mrs. Wyse Power has pointed out that a particular Committee meets to-morrow at 10.30. I doubt very much if the business of that Committee would be concluded at 12 o'clock.

Mr. JAMESON

Personally I have other matters to attend to in the forenoon and cannot be here to-morrow at that time. If the Statistics Bill is not to be debated, I should not consider there was any need for me to be here, as there are no other important matters mentioned, but if the Statistics Bill is going to be part of the business, and if meeting in the forenoon would prevent one from having something to say on it, I would ask the House to meet in the afternoon as usual.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The only stage of the Bill that would be on to-morrow would be the Second Reading. The Committee Stage will not be touched to-morrow, and it is on the Committee Stage that amendments will be taken.

Mr. JAMESON

But if one is not present at the Second Reading, and if one did not vote against the Second Reading, does not that mean that one approves of the principle of the Bill?

CATHAOIRLEACH

Of the principle yes, but not of the details.

Colonel MOORE

I am in agreement with what Senator Douglas has said. On two or three occasions when the hour for the meeting of the Seanad was changed at the last moment, I received no notice whatever of the change, and I have been either absent or turned up by chance at those meetings.

CATHAOIRLEACH

You seem to be very lucky in your chances, Senator.

Colonel MOORE

People who live at a distance from Dublin ought not to be considered very much in the matter. The Seanad assembles very rarely, and Senators should be able to attend to the business here as required.

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

I would go out of my way to convenience country members, but I am a firm believer in having fixed times for our assembly. It is very difficult for one who has engagements to change them at a moment's notice.

Sir JOHN KEANE

Article 11 of the Standing Orders says all meetings of the Seanad shall be held punctually at 3 o'clock. Would it not be necessary to suspend Standing Orders if the hour of meeting is to be changed?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think that only refers to the opening day. At any rate, the construction we have given is the opposite.

Sir JOHN KEANE

But is it not necessary if we have been wrong to get right?

Mr. LINEHAN

I suggest that we postpone our next meeting until next Wednesday at the usual hour.

It was decided to meet to-morrow, Thursday, at 3 o'clock.

The House adjourned at 4.35 p.m.