May I, with the permission of Senator Colonel Moore, move amendment 23?
Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1929—Committee Stage (resumed).
Sections 54 to 56, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 57.
(2) The manager shall attend any meeting of the Council or of any committee of the Council at which he is requested by the Council to attend, and shall at such meeting give to the Council or such Committee (as the case may be) such advice and assistance as shall reasonably be required of him by the Council or such committee, and for that purpose the Manager shall arrange for the attendance at such meeting of such of the officers of the Corporation as may be necessary, having regard to the business to be transacted at such meeting.
Cathaoirleach
Certainly, if the Senator has given his permission.
I move:
In section 57, sub-section (2). To delete in line 22 the words "may be" and to substitute therefor the words "the Council may consider."
The amendment I propose relates to the attendance of the Manager at meetings of the Council. Sub-section (2) says that the Manager may attend any meeting of the Council and that the Manager shall arrange for the attendance at such meeting of such of the officers of the Corporation as may be necessary. We want to substitute for the words "as may be necessary" the words "as the Council may consider necessary." The question which would be likely to arise at such meetings would be question in relation to contracts or in relation to any other works of the council and probably questions as to general policy. The Manager is there of course. The Manager is intended to be a great executive officer. But there may be other officers of the Council who would be good men for advising, say, on the legal interpretation of contracts, statutes and matters of that kind. There may be other officers of the Council such as engineers who may be quite competent to advise the Council on engineering questions in relation, say, to water works. Then another man may be a very good man to advise them on the question of electricity and we wish to have it in the power of the Council to say, if they wish, who is the man who is to come before them and give them advice. I think this is an amendment which the Minister ought to consider reasonable. It is put forward as a distinct improvement on the Bill. It preserves the executive authority of the Manager and at the same time it preserves the deliberative quality of the Council and it is an amendment that ought to be accepted. Speaking on this amendment I would say that the Minister has been very vigilant and very jealous of the powers of the Manager and his executive authority. We do not question that at all. The Minister has carried his point through the Seanad in that matter. This is not a question relating to the Manager's executive authority. It is a question relating to what I might call the Council's views in the matters of policy. I think that the Council should have the right to ask for the attendance of any officer that they consider necessary. I leave the amendment to the judgment of the House. I have explained the object of the amendment as well as I could in the space of time that I wish to take up.
The Senator says I have been vigilant on the question of the Manager's powers. I have been vigilant for the purpose of eliminating out of the situation between the Council and the Manager those little things that may prevent the Manager completely dominating with his own responsibility, and, therefore, the things that would prevent him from completely serving the Council to the fullest possible extent. The Senator states that his amendment is such that it would put it into the direct power of the Council to say who is the man who is to come before them to give advice. We have arranged that such advice or such information as is in the hands of the Manager, or which is in his procurement, will be at the disposal of the Council. In Section 54 we make it clear that the Lord Mayor or Chairman of the Council shall get the information that may be in the possession or procurement of the Manager. In the next section we have arranged that it shall be the duty of the Manager to advise and assist the Council generally in regard to the exercise or performance by them of the reserved functions, and in Section 57 we make arrangements for the attendance of the Manager at any meeting of the Council or Committee of the Council, and that he shall at such meetings give the Council or the Committee such advice and assistance as shall reasonably be required of him by the Council or such Committee, and for that purpose the Manager shall arrange for the attendance at such meeting of such of the officers of the Corporation as may be necessary, having regard to the business to be transacted at such meeting. We say that it shall be the duty of the Manager to give to the Council such advice and assistance as they require, and that, so far as the bringing forward of any official into the Council that the Manager may consider necessary, that that official will be brought forward by the Manager. But it will be entirely within the discretion of the Manager to say whether the official will be brought forward or not—subject to this, that the Council is always in the position to say: "We have not got the advice and assistance we require in connection with this matter, and we are not in a position to say that we have been fully served in this matter without hearing such and such a person."
We do not want to bring about a situation either for the Council itself or for the Manager, that in a casual kind of way, for one reason or another, some member of the Council will get the Council to insist that such and such a person whether minor or major on the staff shall be brought forward there for the purpose of cross-examination and for the purpose of arguing out the point with the Manager. I submit that the section as it stands at present amply provides for the situation. "The Manager shall arrange for the attendance at such meeting" and so on. It was argued in the Dáil that that left a doubt as to who was the ultimate person responsible for saying whether it was necessary or not. In so far as it brought any member of the staff before the Council the only way in which it could be made clear would be to say "such officers of the Corporation as the Manager would consider necessary." But that would be underlining the matter, and I do not think it is necessary to underline it.
Would the Minister accept the principle of this amendment?
I do not accept the principle. If the Council says "We want to see the clerk who filled up these forms here"; and if the Manager in the exercise of his responsibility and discretion says "I am responsible for the management of the staff and the handling of the staff in the execution of the Council's work and I object to the Council interfering and cross-examining this man on these points," then a way is opened up for a dispute. We must assume that the Council and the Manager are going to act reasonably and that the Manager is there to serve the Council's general demands and general purposes. If we introduce little matters upon which little disputes can arise for one reason or another, these disputes will arise and will muddy the whole atmosphere of co-operation that should exist between the Manager and the Corporation about matters generally. The section in its present form provides that in so far as is necessary in regard to giving advice or assistance from the Council, the Manager shall bring before the Council such officers as may be necessary. If the Manager is fit to be in the position at all he should be left to determine, whether having heard the Council on any particular matter, he shall bring a particular officer before them or not.
I think on the general question Senators who have been members of public bodies will realise that there has been a very great amount of unnecessary attendance in the past at Council meetings of responsible officers who might very much more effectively and profitably be away attending to their duties in other places. The Manager should be the person to give the Council advice, and the Council should not be placed in a position in which they can criticise the Manager and say: "Oh, he is not the engineer," or "He is not the medical officer of health; we will not hear him. We want to hear so-and-so. We want a clerk from this or that department." The necessities of the situation are amply covered by the section as it stands, in my opinion.
It seems to me that the position stated by the Minister is wrong. That is to say, if in any circumstances, if by any chance there is a clash between the Council and the Manager, the Manager's will shall prevail. I put forward this as the kind of thing which may well happen. There are certain reserved functions for the Council. One of these is "The powers conferred by Section 3 of the Borough Funds (Ireland) Act, 1888, in relation to the promotion or the opposing of legislation, the prosecution, and defence of any such legal proceedings as are mentioned in that section, etc." That is a reserved function of the Council, and it may be a serious matter for the Council. The Council may require more detailed information, personally given, than the Manager can give. Again, the Manager may have views which are opposed to those of the Council in respect to the prosecution or defence of any legal proceedings or in relation to the promotion or the opposing of legislation. He may have definite views on these matters which are not the views of the Council. The Council may want to get full information, and the Minister's proposition is that the Manager shall decide ultimately who shall give the information. The best of Managers in regard to technical affairs will be speaking from a brief prepared by his experts, and I think everybody will admit that, on many matters, it is better to have the information required given by the person responsible rather than given in a secondhand way.
While I am not satisfied with the amendment in form, because I think it would not go far to achieve its purpose, I think the Council should have the right to call into consultation any officer that they desire to see in the fulfilment of their particular reserved functions. Supposing we delete the words "may be" and insert the words of the amendment, "the Council may consider," that would mean that there shall be a formal consideration before any officer can be brought forward. That is to say, the Manager will not be able to bring forward an officer to assist the Council if the amendment is passed, unless the Council have previously considered it. It would seem to me that the purpose of the mover would be better served if the Seanad insert such words as these after the word "necessary,""or as the Council may require." That would leave an alternative so that if the Manager thought a particular officer would be necessary he could bring him forward and on the other hand if the Council thought it necessary he could be brought forward. I do not think it should be left to the ultimate decision or veto of the Manager if the Council desires the attendance of a particular official with regard to the carrying out of the reserved functions.
This seems to be a very important matter. The importance of it has been proved by an incident which occurred, I think, recently in Cork. The Council there desired the attendance of some official at a meeting and the Manager refused to produce him. How the matter turned out in the end I do not know. I am speaking rather from memory in regard to it but I think everybody who has experience will know that if the Manager is really to be Manager he shall have to account to the Council if the Council are to be of any use. They are there to criticise to a certain extent. The Manager has very large powers indeed over the Council. He will definitely have all these powers. It is only human nature for him to put forward the best side he can. Everybody does that and I would not blame him for doing it but the Council may want to have the required information directly. They may want the information or details from some subordinate of the Manager and I think it is right that they should have the power to demand the attendance of the officer who could give that information, otherwise I do not see how they could carry out their duties. They are simply bound to do what the Manager tells them and they have no power to learn the details independently for themselves. I think such a provision as this is necessary and that it should be in the interests of everybody to have it in the Bill.
I think there are two points of view in regard to this amendment. There are a number of other similar amendments in regard to the question of detail, but this is a question of what one's point of view is. One point of view is whether the Manager is to be in a similar position to the managing director of a firm or of a Board. If a Board were to allow any of its subordinate officials to come into its meetings and to discuss business with the members of the Board over the head of the Manager, or even before him, it would lead to chaos in the conduct of business by the Manager. The idea of this section is that the Manager should be left in a similar position to that of managing director of a Company, responsible in the ultimate, no doubt, to the members of the Council, and responsible for the control of the staff and all details. I believe his position would become impossible if the Council were, against his wishes, to send for and discuss the affairs of the Council with either the office boy, on the one hand, or a very senior official on the other. Many of the amendments deal with the principle rather than with the details. If I thought it wise to do so I would support the amendment, but I oppose it because I want the Manager to be absolutely responsible to the Council.
With the statement of the Minister I am in general agreement, in so far as it is undesirable that, if the Council were unreasonable, they should be allowed to ask that junior officials should be brought before them, or that they should ask for their attendance. I can, however, conceive a situation arising in which it would be necessary that the Council should have before them the executive officers of the Council—the law officer, the City Engineer, the City Architect, the Borough Surveyor—to advise them on questions of policy. As I understand the proposal in the Bill, it is that the Manager is responsible for the details of the work of administration, and that the Council will be responsible for policy. I think that is the idea underlying the Bill. If the Council are to consider questions of policy they might think it desirable to call the Chief Executive Officer of the Department before them—a thing that has often occurred at these public bodies. I think it is necessary and desirable that the Council should have the power to ask the Manager to produce these particular officials when required.
I am not considering the possibility of a clash between the Council and the Manager. It is not a question of a difference of opinion at all. We must remember that the Manager will not be a professional man, and he cannot be expected to be an expert engineer, an expert in public health services, or in legal and other matters that come before the Council. I can say from my experience that it would be necessary, if the Council desired that the responsible executive officer should be brought before them, that the Manager should not have the power to refuse to do so. I am not arguing in anticipation of a clash between the Manager and the Council, because I think any Manager would be extremely foolish who would refuse, when questions of policy are being considered, to bring forward officers for examination. I am speaking in the hope of making this Bill a good Bill, and not from the point of view of taking any power from the Manager. I am considering the working of the public services of the City. I agree with what the Minister said, that it is undesirable that junior officers should be brought to the Council meetings. Anyone who has had any experience of public bodies would oppose that, but I think there should be power to bring in executive officers when the Council is considering matters of policy, which may have a very important bearing on the affairs of the City. Under these circumstances, the Council should be in a position to bring in these officers.
No matter how efficient a Manager is, it must be remembered that there will be members in the new Corporation who will be experts in different branches of industry. That was always so. In the Corporation there were professional men and directors of various branches of industry, men who had a great knowledge of civic administration, whose opinions very often weighed against the opinions offered by some of the professional men in the employment of the Corporation, and very often members of the Council were better able to decide questions of policy than some of the experts the Corporation had in its employment. I am not decrying the officials of the Corporation, because I have always stated that the Corporation had a splendid staff, comparable to any in any service that I know. I am always prepared to pay a tribute to the higher officials of the Dublin Corporation, and to bear testimony to the fact that they have rendered good service to the City. It is in order to try and bring about harmony in the future government of the City that I think it is desirable the Council should have power to have the chief executive officers before them.
I would like to point out that under Section 57 it is mandatory for the Manager to arrange for the attendance at the meetings of experts of the Corporation.
Cathaoirleach
Where do you find that?
Beginning at line 20 the Section continues: "and for that purpose the Manager shall arrange for the attendance at such meeting of such of the officers of the Corporation as may be necessary having regard to the business to be transacted at such meeting ..." I think if you override that by other words you practically do away with the functions of the Manager altogether. As I read the section it is quite sufficient to cover any expert that the Council may desire to hear.
I was interested in hearing Senator Douglas draw an analogy between the managing director of a business firm and the City Manager. I wonder what business firm he has in mind, because he must know, as we all know, that the general tendency of directors at the present time in most firms or undertakings is to reduce the manager to a mere cypher. If Senator Bagwell or Senator Esmonde were here they could tell the House that there is no railway manager in Ireland at present in a position above that of a cypher. The directors take out of his hands practically all the responsibility that formerly devolved upon the manager, and it is amazing to find some people here applauding the policy of making the Manager of the new Corporation supreme. I agree in making him supreme in most things, because he cannot do his work otherwise. I have seen the deplorable results of unskilled and inexperienced people trying to do work that can only be done by people with expert knowledge and experience. It is amusing to find universal applause by business men and directors of banks, and so on, to this principle, when, if you talk to their managers about the matter they will tell you that they interfere and cause confusion by poking their noses into matters about which they know nothing, and by giving instructions over the head of the managers. All the directors here know that is a fact. If they do not believe it, let them consult their own managers or their own staff. It is a grand thing to applaud in someone else's case what they would not accept in the case of their own business.
In a business like railways, for instance, the general manager, as Senator Farren pointed out, is not a professional man. The directors insist on having the chief permanent way engineer before them to talk about certain matters. Sometimes the general manager is against a man coming in, because he may have certain ideas of his own which are not in accordance with these held by men placed over a great department in a professional capacity. The directors like to have a talk with him, and possibly they are right; they do the same with the locomotive engineer and the stores superintendent. The same would be necessary in the case of the Corporation. It does not follow always that the Manager is infallible, nor does it follow that there will of necessity be any friction between the two. We must assume that the Council and the Manager are going to act in a commonsense way, or the Bill is not going to be a success. I think it should be at the discretion of the Council, who we must assume will be composed of a body of responsible people, to send for any officer like the Borough Surveyor or the Law Agent, when dealing with a particular question, and to say that such an officer should be brought before them. I do not think that is much to ask in the Bill, and I do not think it will lead to any friction. It is only establishing the principle which the directors of every company that I know absolutely insist upon where their own officers are concerned.
After this very closely-reasoned debate I think the Minister should now decide between the two positions. Perhaps wisdom lies in a middle course. I quite accept what the Minister stated, that it is wrong that the Council should have the right to call subordinate officials on every occasion. That is not our intention. But take the case, which I hope will not happen, of a breach in any of the embankments. There will be great excitement in the Council. Under this section the Council would not have the right to call upon the engineer immediately. The Manager could bring forward whatever officials he liked. The Council cannot say to the Manager: "Why should not the engineer be here?" All they can say is that they are not satisfied with the explanation of the servants he has brought before them. This amendment is not put forward in any partisan spirit, but with a view to establishing what I might call the homogeneity of this Bill. It is brought forward so as to give the Council some authority in special cases. Perhaps the Minister would accept this change in the amendment: "And for that purpose the Manager shall arrange for the attendance at such meeting of such of the officers of the Corporation as the Council may consider necessary, or the Council may require, having regard to the business to be transacted at such meeting." I think that would meet any objection that was made by Senator Douglas, and would provide for what was said from the Labour Benches.
Cathaoirleach
Will the Senator withdraw the present amendment?
Senator Comyn introduced the question of Cork. One of the most remarkable things about the passage of the Bill in the Dáil was that having heard so much about Cork on the Second Stage, we sat for seven hours on the Recommittal Stage, and no one mentioned Cork.
Great self-restraint.
It was astounding; I think we ought to discuss, and I am prepared to discuss, the matter without any reference to Cork. I am also prepared to discuss it with reference to Cork, although I do not think it will do Cork or Dublin any good to talk about Cork in connection with this Bill. Senator Comyn thinks that some wisdom lies between what is in the Bill and what the amendment proposes. If I might refer to Cork for a moment, there was a row in the Cork Council because the Manager was putting into operation the bye-laws of the Corporation. We are only gradually getting away from the position by which there was no such thing as a Manager and the Council did everything. We want to get very definitely away from that, we must do everything possible to safeguard the machine. Section 58 makes provision whereby in a matter entirely and completely outside the Council's reserved functions, and in a matter that is entirely the Manager's responsibility, the Council may by operation of certain machinery pass a resolution, and make an order that the Manager shall do a certain thing. If the Manager declined to bring in the engineer when discussing a big engineering matter, and the Council objected to that, they have the machinery by which they can require the Manager to produce the engineer. Catastrophes and excitement bring their own machinery for doing things. We provide legislation for the normal running of the Corporation. The Manager is there to serve the Council, to give the Council the information at his disposal, and to produce such officials as are necessary for that. I want to safeguard the Manager in his control over the staff. I think any change in the section would not do that. The Manager is in the position that he knows that if he is so unreasonable as to be worthy of suspension the Council can suspend him. If he is simply unreasonable, and they want an official produced before them, they can operate under Section 58. I do not think that the Manager in carrying on the business of the Council is going to be unreasonable.
Amendment put and, on a show of hands, declared lost.
Section 57 put and agreed to.
I ask for leave to withdraw amendments 24, 25 and 26 standing in the name of Senator O'Doherty as they are consequential to amendment 17 which was disposed of yesterday.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Agreed that Sections 58 to 62, inclusive, stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 63.
On behalf of Senator Milroy I move:—
Section 63, sub-section (4). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3 of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act, 1926 (No. 18 of 1926), execution orders within the meaning of that Act in proceedings in the District Court for the recovery of moneys due in respect of the municipal rate shall, if the Court on the application of the person by whom such proceedings are brought so directs, be executed by such person.
Perhaps I should explain that some of the amendments down in the name of Senator Milroy were prompted by me. Under the Collection of Rates (Dublin) Act, 1849, and the Enforcement of Court Orders Act for the collection of rates, so far as the municipal rate went, that could be given to the rate collector. Under the Enforcement of Court Orders Act, 1926, orders coming into the District Court for the collection of rates were to be passed over to the under-sheriff, if over £5, and to the Civic Guards if under £5. I understand there is a difference in the courts about the matter, and that the Enforcement of Court Orders Act for the collection of rates was given to the collector of rates at times on the discretion of the Justice when the collector asked for it. We have wiped out a large number of individual rates in the city and we have made a new municipal rate, but we have subjected it to all the conditions of the old poor rate and, therefore, we have done away with the provision by which the District Justice, on the application of the rate collector, could give the rate collector an order to enforce the collection of rates. It has been represented by the corporation authorities that where the collection of rates is very satisfactory that it will interfere with and to some extent increase the cost of collection if the court order as a general matter is to be handed over to the under-sheriff for execution. The intention of the amendment is to preserve the old discretion when on the application of the rate collector the Justice could hand over the enforcement order to the collector for collection.
I do not object to the Minister doing what is desired in this amendment, but I have some reservations as to whether it is legal. To make it in order I think you will have to alter your preamble with the Bill, but if it means an alteration of any enactments, or of the court orders, I am pretty sure it is out of order.
Sub-section (3) of the preceding section deals with the matter. Under this Bill we are dealing with everything as regards rates in the City. We want to have all enshrined in one Act. This is only making a modification in the general legislation and preserving a system that is already in operation in the City. I think the Seanad may be satisfied that the amendment is within the scope of the Bill.
If the Minister is satisfied I am.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Section 63, as amended, put and agreed to.
Agreed that Section 64 stand part of the Bill.
On behalf of Senator Milroy I move:—
Section 65. To add at the end of the section the words "but such charges shall be collected and recovered as part of the municipal rate."
The Dublin Water Act of 1861, among other matters, provided for a water contract rate. It was not exactly a rate, but in the main it applied a charge for water supply entered into by special contract between individuals and the Corporation. We have put all the general rates of the City, with the exception of the police rate, into the municipal rate. The Act of 1861 arranges a scheme under which it could be recovered. The scheme was generally dealt with in the Act of 1849. By putting in this amendment here it will enable the water contract money to be collected as part of the municipal rate. This is simply to make good a small omission.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 65, as amended, and Sections 66 and 67, agreed to.
SECTION 68.
Question proposed: "That Section 68 stand part of the Bill."
I have no objection to that, but I do not understand the meaning of the section. Perhaps the Minister would give a little enlightenment as to the very long sentence beginning in line 53 and ending in line 66.
In the Dublin Corporation Act, 1890, arrangements were made by which the City Council in respect of houses of £8 valuation, and suitable for being occupied by artisans or labourers, could compound with the owner of that property provided they satisfied certain conditions and paid the rates before the March of the particular year. They could assess their rates at not less than two-thirds and not more than four-fifths of the valuation. One great advantage of that to the Corporation was that they could require certain conditions to be fulfilled with regard to repairs and sanitation, and all that in connection with these houses. The Rates on Small Dwellings Act, 1925, provided that in the case of houses of £6 valuation—with power to extend that up to £12 valuation—a reduction could be given to the owner in respect of one-tenth of the rate on small dwellings.
The Act of 1925 secures that the old Act remained in operation. It is pointed out by the Council authorities that they wanted to retain the power of giving a greater reduction for the purpose of getting greater control over a certain class of these houses. As the Bill stands it would be possible for the Council, if a certain house or a number of houses came within the scope of their desire in this matter, to give the advantage of eight-tenths as against nine-tenths of the rates under the Small Dwellings Act. It is simply for the purpose of reserving the powers of the Council to accept to the extent of one-tenth as in the old arrangements, subject to whatever general conditions they may wish to impose. There are no general conditions as to sanitation imposed under the Small Dwellings Act. This section, as it stands, completely removes the idea of valuation, and I think that is not to be desired. By the Report Stage consideration will be given as to whether a limit might not be placed on it. I think there should be some restriction. There was a restriction in the 1890 Act of £8. The Small Dwellings Act actually fixed the valuation at £6, but it gave power to raise it to £12.
That is not Section 68.
I apologise. That is Section 72, sub-section (2).
Will the Minister tell me what the sub-section means, and I will understand the remainder of the section?
It simply means this: The Senator will remember that a Bill was introduced last year which extended to the City and County of Dublin the power to give outdoor relief to able-bodied persons, which power had been extended to the country as a whole under the 1923 Act. That raised this year's poor rate by probably 1s. 6d. in respect of Rathmines and Pembroke. We are stabilising, in so far as the rates are comparable, the rates in Rathmines and Pembroke for five years with the rates of last year.
The police rate is a separate rate, and we take that out of the rates for the purpose of standardising. The increased poor rate for the purpose of giving assistance to the able-bodied is also a separate item, and will fall in its proper proportions on Rathmines and Pembroke. We also take that out of the rate for standardising. What is standardised is the basic thing that is left.
The present rate cannot be exceeded for five years.
Except that it can be reduced in respect of the police rate, and increased in respect of poor relief.
Sections 68 to 70, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 71.
Question proposed: "That Section 71 stand part of the Bill."
I just want to ask a question with regard to the concluding portion of sub-section (1). I find there the phrase, "at a reasonable rent." When I turn back to the definition section I can find no definition of what is "a reasonable rent." I wonder who is going to decide what is "a reasonable rent" in respect of this sub-section. The class of houses to which I am going to refer will not have the benefit of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act. The maximum rent in respect of houses held under that Act can be ascertained, but in the case of other hereditaments or tenements which do not come under that Act, I think the phrase "at a reasonable rent" will immediately open the way to the Courts in cases in which there is a dispute. I would like to know what the Minister's intentions are in regard to this.
If there is a dispute between the Corporation and the person liable for rates, there is no other way of deciding that except by going to Court. If we had not the Courts, to which the Corporation could appeal in glaring cases, then the provision with regard to vacant premises would be inoperative.
Who is to fix the fair rent?
The Courts will decide that.
Without any guidance?
They get a lot of guidance.
I think it is an impossible question to ask any court to settle. No one has yet found a way of settling the question of what a reasonable rent is. I remember when this matter was first raised in connection with the land, special judges and courts were set up to deal with it. The question involved then was, what is a fair rent, and not the question which we have today, what is a reasonable rent. After very long consideration the courts finally decided that a fair rent was what an ordinary man would be able to live on in comfort and bring up his family on in comfort. Then the question arose, what is comfort? Was a man with a large family to have a smaller rent than a man with no family? It is a question which no one has been able to settle, nor do I think it will ever be settled.
I think this is a matter which the Minister should reconsider before we take the Report Stage of the Bill. Senator Moore has related some of his reminiscences. I may give an example of the difficulties that are likely to arise in deciding this question. A valuer was giving evidence on behalf of a landlord as to the reasonable rent of a house. He gave the figure of £20. He was asked by a solicitor if he were acting as valuer for the tenant, whether he would value the house at £20. His answer was "upon my oath I would go very near it." This is really a matter which depends on private judgment. It depends on inclination, on self-interest and on a variety of things, and a matter which if not settled on the Report Stage of this Bill will cause tremendous difficulties in the carrying out of the Act.
What the section provides for is that where a tenement is unoccupied at the time of rating the person liable on paying the full rate shall be entitled to a refund of one-twenty-fourth in respect of every completed month during which the tenement is unoccupied for certain purposes. One purpose of unoccupation would be that he could not get a person to take it at a reasonable rent. The person owning the tenement will claim a refund, and say "I was unable to get a person to occupy the house at a reasonable rent. I was offered such and such a rent by one man, and such a rent by somebody else but I am not prepared to accept that figure." I take it that it would then become a question for the Corporation to say whether the rent offered was a reasonable one, and whether the reasons given for want of occupancy were reasonable. It may be that a refund will be made and the thing will end there. But where a difference occurs it will be a matter for the courts. You must have some machinery to force the Corporation to pay out a certain amount of money. If they are not willing to pay it out, then I take it the case will have to go to the courts. In connection with the rating arrangements for vacant premises made under the 1928 Act, I had not had any case brought to my notice of a dispute between ratepayers and the Council.
This is a question on which I have some experience, and I would make a suggestion to the Minister on the problem of what a reasonable rent is. You may have a case like this: Premises may be vacant, and the Council will demand the rates on them. The owner of the premises will say: "I could not get a reasonable rent." The Council will answer: "You could have got a reasonable rent of £50." The man's reply to that will be, "my house is well worth £75." That dispute must be settled by some court. The settlement of the dispute will involve the employment of valuers, and although I am against bureaucracy I think it would not be a bad thing to have the determination of this absolutely in the hands of some one person.
Perhaps if the Senator would give us the benefit of his experience we might be able to consider the matter by way of amendment on the report. We realise the great necessity of keeping people out of courts as much as possible.
It would not be profitable litigation for lawyers.
Section 71 agreed to.
SECTION 72. (2).
Any hereditament or tenement in the City which, in the opinion of the City Council, is suitable for use as a dwelling for and is occupied by an artisan or a labourer shall, if the City Council so resolves, be deemed to be a small dwelling within the meaning of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928 (No. 4 of 1928), and that Act shall apply to such hereditament or tenement accordingly, but subject to the modification that in relation to such hereditament or tenement Section 10 of the said Act shall have effect as if the expression "eight-tenths" were substituted for the expression "nine-tenths" in sub-section (1) of that section.
I move amendment 29:—
Section 72, sub-section (2). To delete "all" after the word "accordingly" in line 25 down to the end of the sub-section.
The sub-section provides that any house the Council consider suitable for use as a dwelling by an artisan or a labourer shall be brought within the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928, but with a modification, the modification being that instead of allowing a 10 per cent. discount to the owner of the property for repayment of the rates within a certain number of months, the discount shall be raised to 20 per cent. I think that is the nett effect of the proposal in the Bill, and I think we should have some attempt to justify increasing the rate of discount provided for in the 1928 Act. That Act applies to the country generally. This Act applies to Dublin only. I do not think we should allow this to pass, because, in effect, it is an amendment of the 1928 Act. I think we should have some explanation as to why it is proposed to increase the rate of discount from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent.
Section 10 of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928, provides for the payment of discount. There is a remission of rates to the extent of 1/10th for a certain amount of prompt payment of rates. Sub-section (2) of that Act sets out that—
The provisions of this section shall be in addition to and not in substitution for the provisions of any other enactment (whether public, general, local or personal, public or private) enabling a rate to be discharged by payment of a fraction thereof within a limited time, but not so as to entitle any person to relief under this section and under such other enactment in respect of the same rate.
One of the enactments that was borne in mind framing that sub-section was Section 75 of the Dublin Corporation Act of 1890. That section provides—
In cases in which the annual value of any premises does not exceed eight pounds and the premises are in the judgment of the Corporation suitable as dwellings for and are occupied by artisans or labourers it shall be lawful for the Corporation to compound with the owner of such premises for the payment of all or any of the rates leviable on such reduced estimate of the net annual value not being less than two-thirds nor more than four-fifths of the net value at which the premises are assessed as the Corporation may deem reasonable. Provided that the year's rates on such reduced estimates are paid on or before the first day of March in each year.
This section seeks to retain that to the extent of four-fifths to the Corporation. It was pointed out by the City Corporation that the Bill as it stands at present would prejudice them in the holding of these powers. These powers are being followed for this reason: that the Small Dwellings Act gives them no discretion but to give these deductions in respect of prompt payment of rates. This section lays down the conditions which they will give the increased reduction. The object was to get greater control over sanitation and other matters in regard to artisans dwellings in the city, and over the general state of repairs of these dwellings. The City authorities have pressed us to secure a continuance of that discretion to them. I think the Seanad ought to meet the City authorities in allowing them to retain this discretion.
I am afraid I have not been able to follow the argument of the Minister. As I read these two Acts the provision in the Bill before us means that an additional discount will be allowed in addition to the privileges granted in the previous Acts.
No.
I hope that it is not so.
The Rates on Small Dwellings Acts itself prevents houses that are getting privileges under previous Acts getting increased privileges under it. That Act at present applies to Dublin. It extends the privilege of one-tenth remission of rates to houses with a valuation up to £6 whether it submits to the additional sanitary control or not. As a matter of fact, this Act does increase the level up to £8 in respect of all small dwellings. Under the Rates on Small Dwellings Act it would be possible for the Minister to issue an order increasing the valuation in respect of remissions up to £12. The Corporation do not desire that, but while not extending the concessions under the Rates on Small Dwellings Act above £8, they do desire a discretion to extend the additional discount such as they had under the 1890 Act. They desire to be able to act in a selective way in respect of the houses to which they would apply the discount for the purpose of having control over the general condition and sanitation of the houses.
I am sure it is due to my obtuseness, but I do not read sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928, in that way. That sub-section provides that wherever the owner of a small dwelling who is not also the occupier pays to the rating authority nine-tenths of the amount of the rate and so on— that is practically a 10 per cent. discount. Sub-section (2) goes on to say that the provisions of this section shall be in addition to, and not in substitution for, the provisions of any other enactment enabling a rate to be discharged by payment of a fraction thereof, but not so as to entitle any person to relief under this section in respect of the same rate. It cannot be doubled. Then we have the sub-section in the Bill which says that the Act shall apply, but subject to the modification that in relation to such hereditament or tenement it shall be "eight-tenths" and not "nine-tenths." Therefore I take it that the discount provided for in the 1928 Act is doubled.
That is in respect of certain sets of houses in the City that have special consideration by the Council carrying on their traditional policy in the matter of control over these houses for sanitary purposes instituted by them in their special Act of 1890.
In order to keep this matter alive I ask to be allowed to withdraw the amendment with a view to reviving it later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 72, 73, 74 and 75 agreed to and added to the Bill.
SECTION 76.
I move amendment 30:
New section. Before Section 76 to insert a new section as follows:
76.—(1) The Council, by resolution passed under this section and for the passing of which not less than two-thirds of the members of the Council shall have voted, may authorise the expenditure by the Corporation of moneys on the decoration of the City for occasions of public rejoicing or for other appropriate occasions.
(2) Every resolution passed under this section shall specify the occasion for which the decoration of the City wholly or partly at the expense of the Corporation is to be authorised by such resolution and the amount which is to be expended by the Corporation on such decoration.
(3) Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-section the Corporation may expend moneys out of the Municipal Fund in accordance with and in so far as authorised by a resolution passed under this section but not otherwise.
(4) The aggregate amount of the expenditure of the Corporation for the purposes of this section in any local financial year shall not exceed a sum equivalent to a rate of one penny in the pound of the rateable valuation of the City.
The amendment speaks for itself. Its object is that the Corporation may, on very special occasions, decide to expend a certain amount of money on the decoration of the city. They can only do so by passing a resolution at a meeting at which not less than two-thirds of the members would be present and at which it should be decided what was the occasion such money should be expended. This amendment has been framed deliberately so that nobody could abuse its powers in this respect. I think every Senator in the House will agree with me when I say that there are very special and rare occasions on which it is necessary, in the interests of our city, when large numbers of visitors may be coming into it, that we should be entitled to decorate it in cases where we think it is advisable and necessary to do so. I do not know that there is any necessity to elaborate in detail what the amendment does. It is quite simple and means this: On occasions of rejoicing in our city there may be great numbers of persons coming in here and I think it is undesirable that commercial travellers should be sent round with tall hats to collect from citizens money for the purpose of decorating the city on such occasions. Some good citizens will contribute and some particular ones always are contributing, and the necessity of this being thrown upon the shoulders of a few people—bankers and other people like that—has been simply blackmailing these people, getting subscriptions to meet a charge that should fall upon the citizens as a whole. Senators will agree with me in having framed the amendment so as to prevent the council being wild or extravagant about this matter, and I hope I have done it in a reasonable way, and I hope the amendment will be accepted. As far as I understand it, the Minister is not opposed to the amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 76, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
Section 77 agreed to.
SECTION 78.
Question proposed: "That Section 78 stand part of the Bill."
Under this section provision is made for the appointment of the Deputy Manager, but I do not see any provision made in the event of the possibility of the Manager and the Lord Mayor being incapacitated at the same time. There would be no possibility under the machinery in the Bill for the appointment of a Deputy Lord Mayor. And as the Lord Mayor seems to have certain powers which are essential, it seems to be desirable that any possible gap should be filled. I only query this point in order to know whether under the existing law there is provision for the appointment of a Deputy Mayor. If that is so, perhaps there is no need to say anything further about it. But as the section stands it does not make possible the appointment of a Deputy Lord Mayor in case the present Lord Mayor happened to be incapacitated.
We apply the description of Lord Mayor in one place and Chairman in the other. The Acts relating to Mayors of boroughs, I am sure, provides for the appointment of Deputy Mayors. In any case, we will have the matter looked into to see how it stands at present. After all, if such an incident as the Deputy refers to happened, there is provision for a Deputy Manager.
Section 78 agreed to.
Sections 79 to 87, inclusive, agreed to and added to the Bill.
SECTION 88.
(1) On the appointed day the Blackrock Urban District, the Dun Laoghaire Urban District, the Rathmines and Rathgar Urban District, and the Pembroke Urban District shall cease to be school attendance areas within the meaning of the School Attendance Act, 1926 (No. 17 of 1926), and the City and the Borough shall respectively become and thenceforward be school attendance areas within the meaning of that Act.
(2) On and after the appointed day the School Attendance Act, 1926, shall have effect in the City, the Borough, and the County as if the City and the Borough were mentioned in the Schedule to that Act and the County Borough of Dublin and the said four urban districts were omitted from the said Schedule.
(3) In the application of the School Attendance Act, 1926 to the City and the Borough, the appointed day shall be deemed to have been prescribed by the Minister for Education under Section 10 of that Act as the time for the commencement of the term of office of the successors in the City and the Borough respectively of the committees referred to in that section as the first school attendance committees.
On behalf of Senator Milroy I move amendment 31, Section 88, sub-section (1). To delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—
"(1) The several areas of the Blackrock Urban District, the Dun Laoghaire Urban District, the Rathmines and Rathgar Urban District, the Pembroke Urban District and the several school attendance areas subsisting at the passing of this Act in the City shall until the 1st day of April, 1931, continue to be and shall then cease to be school attendance areas within the meaning of the School Attendance Act (No. 17 of 1926) and on and after the 1st day of April, 1931, the City and the Borough shall respectively become and be school attendance areas within the meaning of that Act."
The amendment is necessary in order to facilitate the work of the School Attendance Committees in the areas mentioned.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 32:
Section 88, sub-section (2)—To delete in line 53 the words "appointed day" and to substitute therefor the figures and words "1st day of April, 1931."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 33:
Section 88, sub-section (3)—To delete in line 59 the words "appointed day" and to substitute therefor the figures and words "1st day of April, 1931."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 88, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 89.
Question proposed: "That Section 89 stand part of the Bill."
The section says: "In the register of electors for the county which is to come into force on the 1st of June, 1930, the various portions of the added rural area shall be shown separately in the prescribed manner." The lists are already printed, I understand, and I am wondering whether that law has been complied with.
I know the register has given the Department a very considerable amount of thought. I have not seen the register and would not be prepared to say what the position actually is. There may be difficulties, but so far as they can be overcome by very careful administrative action they will be overcome. When you change one area to another you will have difficulty, especially where you have to split townlands. So far as we can possibly avoid any difficulty, I shall see it will be done.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 89 agreed to.
SECTION 90.
Question proposed: "That Section 90 stand part of the Bill."
This section makes provision for the appointment of persons to manage the Dublin Union for a period, but it is contemplated that the Council shall not elect persons from their own members, but that they may go outside. I raised that point, as I think it is not desirable to appoint persons from outside the Council. But as my view was not received well by the Seanad yesterday I just would like to make a protest on this particular section.
Perhaps it would be as well that the Seanad should understand the position. At the present moment there are three areas in which there are Boards of Guardians—Balrothery, Rathdown, and the Commissioners of the Dublin area. The County Council are given powers here to set up a body to act practically as Commissioners for the County Council in Balrothery and Rathdown areas, and to nominate certain people to act for such people in respect of the Dublin area. We shall be passing through a transition period in this financial year, to the 1st April next. It may be that the County Council would wish to nominate the present guardians either in Rathdown or Balrothery to carry on the work for the remainder of the year, and these guardians need not be members of the County Council. This arrangement is only for a small part of the financial year, and we think that the County Council should have a discretion in the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 90 agreed to and added to the Bill.
Sections 91 to 100, inclusive, agreed to and added to the Bill.
SECTION 101.
I move amendment 34:
Section 101, sub-section (5)— To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5) No order made under the foregoing sub-sections of this section shall come into operation unless and until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and approved by a resolution of each such House."
The question raised in this amendment is an important one. It will be found in sub-section (3), and gives the Minister power to do certain things by order:
"(3) Where it appears to the Minister that any local, personal, or private Act or any order relating to the existing city or to either of the added urban districts and in force at the passing of this Act contains provisions which are inconsistent with or rendered unnecessary by or adequately replaced by provisions made by or under this Act, the Minister may by order declare that such provisions of such Act or order shall not apply in or in relation to the City, and upon such order being made the provisions specified therein of such Act or order shall not apply in or in relation to the City."
That is to say the Minister may in his discretion decide that any local, personal, or private Act shall no longer be law if, in his opinion, it is adequately replaced by the provisions of this Act. No doubt it is necessary that certain powers shall be given to the Minister to make the adaptations, and particularly is that so in respect to the general Acts provided for by sub-section (5). But when one is giving the Minister power to amend by administrative order sections, say, of the Port and Docks Act or, say, an Act of the Gas Company, or any other local, private or personal Act, it is a very big order indeed that is given to the Minister without the sanction of the Oireachtas. It is provided in sub-section (6) that any order made under the section shall be laid before both Houses and if a resolution is passed within a certain time annulling such order it shall not have effect. But we know as a matter of practice that the laying of an order on the Table is a mere perfunctory procedure.
Nobody in this House and I think nobody in the other House has taken upon himself or herself the onerous responsibility of examining those orders and their effect upon the law of the country. I think that that provision of laying on the Table and waiting for a motion in the House might be justified in respect of Section 5 which deals with general Acts. But it seems to me that this amending of local, personal or private Acts by an order of the Minister should not be operative without the sanction of the Oireachtas. Personally I would be quite satisfied if I felt that there was machinery within this House to ensure that the House itself would be made cognisant of the effect of any order of the kind by deliberating in a definite way and that certain public attention would necessarily be drawn to the effect of such an order. But in view of the practice I think it is too great a power to give to the Minister. We should require that before any order of the kind becomes effective it should have the positive sanction rather than the negative acquiescence of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
I think this is a most glaring example of the exercise by the Ministry of suspensing and dispensing powers. The power to suspend by Acts of Parliament and the power to dispense with Acts of Parliament is a most glaring example of the exercise of arbitrary power by the Minister. The Minister, I am sure, knows thoroughly well that the exercise of these powers in former times has caused untold trouble. Ministries now in democratic governments are taking these same arbitrary powers that did so much harm in former times. On several occasions Bills have come before this House where the officials of the Department took to themselves the right to legislate. Here the Minister takes to himself the right to repeal legislation, the right to suspend legislation and the right to dispense with it.
There might be every excuse for a Department which is pressed for time in the formulation of a measure but this Bill is a Bill to which a great amount of care and attention has been devoted. I am sure that every Act of Parliament relating to local government in Ireland and elsewhere has been scanned by those who were preparing this Bill. It was quite competent for the Minister, if he intended to alter or repeal any existing law in whole or in part, to put it into the Bill—it was within his power to put it into the Bill. It was within his knowledge, because I know in the course of the discussion that has gone on in relation to the various sections of the Bill that the Minister is thoroughly cognisant of every Act of Parliament dealing directly or indirectly with the Corporation of Dublin. He and his officials are cognisant of all these Acts of Parliament. It would be quite competent for the Minister to put into his Bill the various sections of Acts of Parliament which he contemplates are to be dispensed with or suspended. It is a very bad principle to introduce this power of allowing the Minister, by laying orders on the Table, to override the legislature or the law courts. I saw the other day where a Minister stated that the power of life and death was in the hands of the Ministry and not in the power of the law; that it was in the hands of the Government for the time being. There must be respect for the written law; there must be a respect for the authority of our legal institutions, for the authority of the Parliament of this country. The authority of the Oireachtas must be preserved supreme in all respects and on all occasions. There was no justification whatever for the Minister here taking to himself the power by order to suspend or dispense with the law. He and his officials know thoroughly well what they want to do. They should have put it into this Bill. They should have it passed by the Dáil and Seanad. I think the resolution proposed by Senator Johnson is really too mild, in view of what has happened, not merely in this country but in other countries. Ministers and Departments have taken on themselves arbitrary powers and this is a thing which the people will have to resist sooner or later.
Unusual as is the company in which I find myself, I wish to support the spirit of this amendment. This matter of giving power to Departments to make orders has been the subject of very serious comment by eminent people in other countries. A short time ago the Lord Chief Justice of England wrote a book on this very subject, and one can imagine when the Lord Chief Justice, with the responsibility of his office, thinks it necessary to write a book and thinks the matter worthy of consideration, how important the question is. This is really giving very wide and dangerous powers to the Executive. It enables them to amend in any way they wish a number of Acts of Parliament within the wide scope of this Bill. That is what the section really means. The courts of law have no power to interfere with such administrative orders. I agree that in 99 out of 100 cases there may be no abuse or injustice. But the fact that it is possible in one case out of the 100 to inflict injustice by machinery of this kind, to turn a Department into a law-making body, is extremely serious, and it strikes at the root of the basic principles on which Parliamentary control rests. I do not see why it should not be possible to divide this into two groups. There are ordinary administrative orders which do not involve the adaptation of any Act. There are other orders which involve the adaptation of some statutes. These orders would constitute new law—law made by administrative order. If the House wishes to have law by administrative order they are given an opportunity now of saying so. I suggest some scheme in which amendments to Acts of Parliament should be confirmed by positive resolutions of both Houses and not merely passed by allowing the order to lie on the Table.
I should like to say a word to enforce the statements made by the Senators who have already spoken. The peace of this country and the freedom of every citizen depend upon the law courts. The law courts try to carry out as best they can the laws passed by the Oireachtas. On these two things, on the Oireachtas and on the courts of justice, the rights of the citizens rest. As has been pointed out by the last speaker, Lord Chief Justice Hewit, in his recent book, has shown that there is a gradual encroachment in England on the rights of Parliament and on the rights of the law courts. Ministers, to save themselves trouble and to save bother, put in some section in a Bill. This is a growing abuse. It enables them, in spite of certain laws, to do what they choose to abolish these laws and to alter them or to do anything else they like with them. That is an abuse that has been growing up in this country. There is much less excuse for that in this country than in other countries. In England, where these things are done, Ministers have an immense amount of work before their Parliament. That Parliament has to deal with the affairs of many parts of the world and they find it difficult there to find time for many things. But in this country it is different. The country is small and there is ample time to provide for all the legislation that is needed. The Seanad and Dáil should resist encroachments of this kind on their authority.
I think with the general principle underlying most of the speeches, all sides of this House are in general agreement. The only difficulty has arisen over a certain type of order which is purely administrative. In the amendment we have the necessity for a formal resolution. I think there is a growing feeling here that there should be a positive Resolution by the House instead of simply laying the order on the Table of the House. I think it is no harm to point out that on this Bill there is no question of giving unlimited power to the Minister. The point was raised by Senator Johnson that if the order were laid on the Table it might be overlooked, but that a Resolution coming before the House would not be overlooked. Personally I must say that I prefer a positive Resolution, and for that reason I will support the amendment.
I think Senator Comyn has a greater conception than his remarks would indicate of the large amount of legislation which is involved. There are about 48 local, personal and private Acts dealing with Dublin City alone. There are other Acts dealing with Rathmines, some others with Pembroke, and some Acts dealing with the urban districts now making up the coastal borough. I have not a copy of even some of these Acts.
I am greatly surprised at what the Minister says. I thought he had seen every one of them.
The Senator will understand that it is very difficult to get a copy of some of these private Acts. There are bodies that have not got copies of their own private Acts. In Dublin alone there are 48 private Acts. I am asking here for power to issue such orders on these lines as will in the first place give effect to the provisions of the Act generally, and, in so far as we are putting Rathmines and Pembroke into the new Dublin City area, and amalgamating four urban councils into a new borough, that I should be given power to extend to the whole new City the provisions of an Act dealing with the present Dublin City or the provisions of a particular Act dealing with Rathmines or Pembroke, according as it may appear best, after full consultation with the local authority. For instance a great amount of private legislation has been carried through dealing with public health matters generally.
If we extended the area of the present City of Limerick we would extend to the new area all the provisions of Acts, dealing with buildings, streets and public health matters, which are included in private Acts of the City of Limerick and the Oireachtas would pass that provision without examining in the least any of the private Acts. All the power we are asking, as far as private Acts are concerned, is that we shall be allowed to take the legislation that already exists in regard to Dublin, Rathmines or Pembroke and, after full examination of the provisions and the different matters contained in these Acts by the local authority, that we shall have power to issue an order which will make uniform the law in respect to the whole City according to the best provisions of this legislation, and that we shall have power to deal with the general adaptation of these Acts. For instance, under the Rathmines Urban Council Act of 1902 the Clerk may do some things; the surveyor may do other things, and the Council may do certain other things. All these things are to be made clear by the necessary orders.
If all these matters have to come before the Seanad by way of a formal Resolution and that these matters are to be discussed here, I do not know where the discussion will lead to. What we propose is that we shall be allowed to issue an order to be laid on the Tables of both Houses and that if, within the next twenty-one days on which either House sat, it is found that there is any objectionable provision in the Order, the matter can be raised and the order annulled. The same provisions are incorporated in the 1923 and 1925 Acts. I do not see any reason for departing from that procedure here simply because, instead of dealing with the whole country and changing from boards of guardians to boards of health and from rural councils to county councils, we are changing from urban councils to borough councils or to municipal councils. The analogy is quite the same as in the 1923 and 1925 Acts.
To suggest that the Seanad or the Dáil simply deals with its responsibilities in the matter of statutory powers in a perfunctory way, and that because of that the operation of the City Council or a department should be slowed down, I think an unworthy suggestion to come from any section of the Oireachtas. Civil Service departments are charged with being dilatory in the way of dealing with certain matters. They deal with very detailed matters and deal with them very scrupulously and in many ways they are tied up with statutory provisions of one kind or another. In the matter of dealing with the mass of legislation that gradually must be dealt with either by order of this kind or in some other way, in order to have a uniform position in regard to the law in the City and the Borough, if we are to be unnecessarily held up by having to discuss the various orders that will be issued, in both Houses of the Oireachtas, the work is going to be much longer delayed than I would like to see it.
It is no doubt true that in many Acts that are passed, a formal adaptation section of this kind has been introduced. The Minister spoke of the 1923 Act. I do not remember, but I accept the Minister's word in the matter, that identically wide powers were given then to the Minister. It was provided by order, he states, that he might annul or amend any local, private or personal Acts. It may have been.
It was not. What I did suggest was that some of the general legislation as applied to district councils and boards of guardians in regard to county councils and boards of health bear the same relation that the private Acts bear to the Acts that are going to govern the Borough and the municipal council.
I am not of the view that this system of legislation by order should be entirely banned. I think it is necessary under the modern scheme of Parliamentary Government with the complexities that confront Parliament, that some such provision should be in operation provided that there is clear and adequate provision made for Parliamentary sanction of the acts of the Minister. I do not think that in practice the provision that is made in the 1923 Act or in this Bill is satisfactory. We are opposed to this provision because of the faults of the 1923 Act and the subsequent Acts. We should bear in mind that we had not very long experience of Parliamentary affairs in 1923, and that we have long since learned that a provision such as is sought to be put into the Bill by sub-section (6) is inadequate to ensure that there shall be proper Parliamentary control over the making of laws. I hope the House will bear in mind that in making these orders the Ministry is being given power to alter the law and even to make new laws. If there is one thing we should insist on it is that the law-making authority should be the Parliament and not the Minister.
The Minister has spoken of the possibility of holding up the work of administration and I recognise that possibility. It has been recognised as a defect in England and I find that in the Local Government Act passed in England about 1929, the same question was under discussion. After a good deal of consultation and debate a provision was inserted as follows:—
"Every order made under this section shall come into operation upon the date specified therein in that behalf, but shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made and shall cease to have effect upon the expiration of a period of three months from the date upon which it came into operation unless at the same time before the expiration of that period it has been approved by a resolution passed by each House of Parliament.
"Provided that in reckoning any such period of three months as aforesaid no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
If such provision as that were inserted in this Bill it would remove the Minister's objection regarding the dilatory effect of getting Parliamentary consent to the Orders. But I am convinced that we ought to ensure that the Parliament should have an active and positive supervision over the law-making of the country. I shall put it to the Minister in a concrete way. Let me mention the Gas Company. The Gas Company is acting under Parliamentary sanction, under statutory provisions made for its operation. I have an idea that some of those provisions should be altered, but this section would read in effect as affecting the Gas Company as follows: "Where it appears to the Minister that the Act relating to the Gas Company (giving them powers under which they are acting) contains provisions which are inconsistent with or are rendered unnecessary by or adequately replaced by provisions made by or under this Act, the Minister may by order declare that such provisions shall not apply." That is possibly a nonsensical comparison, because the Gas Company may not have any of the powers or provisions that are affected by this Bill. I do not know what the powers of the Gas Company are. I do not know what the powers of the Port and Docks Board are or of any other institution which is working under statute, but we have taken over as part of the law of the State these statutes, and if they are to be altered they should be altered by Parliament and not by the Minister.
That is the whole case. In so far as the Minister seeks to change private, local or personal Acts he should certainly get the positive approval of the Oireachtas. I have made this resolution apply to the local, personal or private Acts rather than to general Acts. I am not sure that I am wise in doing so. I can see reason for being more moderate than Senator Comyn would be but I would ask the House to approve of the principle of the amendment and, if it is thought desirable, to amend the provisions of the amendment in such a way as I have indicated, in the direction of the clause of the English Local Government Act of 1929. That can be done on the Report Stage and it would meet the only objection which the Minister has submitted to the House.
There is quite an evident feeling in the House—anybody who is conversant with the speeches made in the House will admit it—that the House very strongly objects to the proposal of having an order laid on the Table of the House for only three weeks.
Twenty-one sitting days of the Oireachtas—not three weeks.
How long is it?
Nearly a whole twelve months.
Is that so?
Cathaoirleach
Yes. It says "within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which such House has sat after such order is laid before it."
Does Senator Johnson recognise that?
Perfectly. That is my point. Owing to our own fault, this House refused to set up machinery to examine these things. Owing to that fault, we have allowed these orders to be laid on the Table without any notice being taken of them. I want to insist that notice shall be taken of these orders.
Does the last part of the amendment mean that they will not come into effect until passed by both Houses?
As I understand what is intended is that an Act of Parliament can only be repealed by a distinct Resolution of both Houses, which in itself is an Act of Parliament.
The feeling of the House is that these matters should be dealt with by Resolution of the Houses and not by being laid on the Table. It must be quite evident to the Minister that that is the feeling. Having come to this stage of the Bill, we do not want to carry a resolution against the wishes of the Minister. Knowing the feeling, I think the Minister should look into the matter and see whether these orders which have to be made cannot be made in such a way that they will be submitted by resolution to the House. We passed this Bill through Committee in two days. That is a fair sample of how we can do our business, and if the orders are of the nature that the Minister referred to, the matter can be arranged by agreement practically. There may be only one order about which there may be discussion, but if everybody knew that all orders would be brought before the House, it would give a greater feeling of security. That is not the case under the Bill in its present form. Before the Report Stage I would suggest to the Minister that he should look into the matter to see if he could not meet the wishes of the House by making a proposal which the House will accept. Arrangements could be made for meetings of the House so that they could be passed in a reasonable time. It is only a matter of arrangement. It may cause a little delay, but I do not think it will be very great if the wishes of the House are met.
I will certainly consider this matter between this and the Report Stage if the Seanad will hold over the amendment in the meantime. This is a matter that must be dealt with piecemeal. The number of things that have to be dealt with range, say, from penalties for chimneys going on fire, to regulations that have to be attended to regarding drains and overhead wires, as well as powers of interference with dividing walls where dangerous structures exist. While that work is work for the head of the Department affecting the borough council on the one side, and the city council on the other side, I feel that if I have, after this Dublin Bill, to come before the Oireachtas with a whole new code on say public health, sanitary and other matters, I shrink from what it means to me, and to the Department, because what it involves is taking in all the improvements in general public health matters made by means of Private Bills on behalf of the City Council of Dublin and the six other urban district councils. If an order has to be argued and a resolution passed, say after 3 months, that seems an unnecessary and a laborious way of doing business. With the system offered the order will be issued in a way that seems reasonable after the necessary examination and will then be put into operation. The situation is left perfectly clear, so that the Dáil after 21 sitting days, and the Seanad after 21 sitting days, will see if there is anything objectionable in the order. It seems to me that a very great amount of labour is going to be put unnecessarily on the Minister, because it will mean that he will have to watch every detail of the adaptation, which is really a Departmental business, particularly when dealing with an elected public body, and such as the Council or the Borough might reasonably be left to examine in detail. The matter might be left between the Department and the Council involved. This proposal is going to involve the Minister. Senator Johnson's conception is going to involve a great amount of work on the Seanad, and to involve going over the whole gamut of the public health services, road control, and various matters in connection with local government, in respect of the City of Dublin and of the County Borough.
What is the Seanad for?
I submit that as you allow for the fixing of certain shop hours for local authorities you should allow for the framing of regulations inside particular limits. Inside those limits you will allow experts of the Local Government Department and the City Council to deal with details affecting an area where conditions are fully known. This is not a question of the Minister making an order, but of the Minister making an order after full examination of the general and local Acts affecting the area in which there is an elected local government body. I think it is very different to say that the Minister is taking an Act of Parliament, whether public or private, and changing it. We have to operate within the limits of this particular Bill, and to operate with the two Councils involved. While I will have the matter more fully considered between this and the Report Stage, I rather shrink from the amount of detailed work asked for by the amendment.
Would it not be possible to separate what might be called the administrative Acts, of which the Minister gave several examples, from what I might call small matters of detail which are at variance with existing Acts of Parliament? These are Acts which, I think, the House is not anxious should be interfered with without Parliamentary sanction. Surely it would be quite easy to differentiate between the two, allowing the Minister full power with regard to administration and executive Acts, but in things that impinge on existing Acts of Parliament they should be brought up and determined by Resolution of the House.
I must say that I do not understand the difference between the two.
I want to make one suggestion. Some of these Acts of Parliament involve imprisonment. Is the Minister going to repeal, or to amend the law affecting the liberty of the citizen without the special Resolution of Parliament? I do not wish to make the position difficult for the Minister, but I think this matter is capable of being clarified and of being settled satisfactorily.
Let us take a case like this: Rathmines and Rathgar Urban District Council got an Act passed in 1902. Section 32 reads:—
(1) The Council may require the owner of any house within the district having a supply of water for domestic purposes to abolish private cess pits or privies combined with ashpits or pail closets, and to provide instead water closets or such other latrine accommodation and refuse receptacles as the Council may approve of.
(2) Any person who after the expiry of three months from the date of his having been served with written notice to make such alterations, neglects or refuses to carry it into effect shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5 and to a daily penalty not exceeding 40/.
Rathmines got that passed for itself. It is an Act of Parliament, and there may be a similar Act of Parliament as regards Dublin. It says the penalty shall not exceed £10. It has to be decided whether the fine has to be £5 or £10 for the whole City.
These matters are capable of segregation. The Minister has not answered my question as to whether he takes power to deal with personal liberty and with the question of imprisonment.
We can do nothing under the section as i stands but take the Acts of Parlia ment and say whether a particular Act shall extend to the whole area or not, and make changes within the limits of this Bill. We are not going to invent new laws for new areas. We can say whether the penalty shall be £5 or £10, but I doubt whether we can split the difference between £5 and £10.
The Minister is inventing new laws, for he is repealing laws that are in existence.
The Minister can in effect make new laws. Why should he not go the proper way to do it and get the sanction of the Oireachtas and not do it simply by laying a paper on the Table? I am surprised to hear him say that he cannot make new laws, having regard to the sub-section, which states:
(2) The Minister may by order do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
(a) make such adaptations and modifications of and in any local, personal, or private Act or any order relating to the existing city or to either of the added urban districts or to any of the coastal urban districts and in force at the passing of this Act as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of carrying this Act into effect.
Is not that making new laws?
I cannot see the extraordinary difficulty the Minister is talking about. The work has to be done in any case. The Minister referred to the expert assistance and instruction that would be required if the suggestion in the amendment were carried, but the Minister must be instructed in any case. We all know that the Minister has to take a lead on these matters from his officials. He has to be briefed and advised by them. The responsibility of the Minister is there equally whether the order is made by the Department or by Resolution. I can see no extra work involved except that in piloting the Resolutions through both Houses. After all they will mainly be formal, non-controversial matters that will be dealt with, and there will be no more work and no more debate about them than we had about a number of resolutions we had from Geneva and that we debated recently. What was proposed by the amendment is a precaution lest there should be the danger of legislation by order.
I agree with Senator Jameson that it would be better to have this matter postponed for the Report Stage, and if the Minister agreed there is no necessity for further discussion.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 12.
Tá
- Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
- Michael Comyn, K.C.
- Joseph Connolly.
- The Countess of Desart.
- James G. Douglas.
- J.C. Dowdall.
- Thomas Farren.
- Henry S. Guinness.
- Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Sir John Keane.
- Colonel Moore.
- Joseph O'Doherty.
- L. O'Neill.
- Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
- Séumas Robinson.
Níl
- Miss Kathleen Browne.
- R.A. Butler.
- Alfred Byrne.
- Mrs. Costello.
- John C. Counihan.
- Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
- Dr. O. St. J. Gogarty.
- Sir Walter Nugent.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
- Thomas Toal.
- Richard Wilson.
Amendment declared carried.
SECTION 101.
I move:—
Section 101, sub-section (6). Before the word "this" in line 16 to insert the words "sub-section (5) of."
That is consequential upon the last amendment.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Section 101, as amended, declared carried.
Sections 102, 103 and 104 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule stand part of the Bill."
Before passing from the Second Schedule, I would like if the Minister would give some explanation as to the principle underlying the drafting of the boundary lines. Looking at the map, I find that in the Cabra district the new boundary runs through farm lands and between fields of a single holding, while within a very few yards there is a townland division. On the outside of the city there are considerable buildings, convent buildings, and so on. I do not know whether there is any connection between those buildings and the decision to leave them outside the City or not. In two or three places on the map there seems to be an entirely artificial new boundary drawn, and it requires an explanation which I hope the Minister will give.
The boundary was very carefully examined by our engineering officer in conjunction with the City authorities. With regard to the position in Cabra where a townland is divided, we desired to avoid a division of the townland, because of the difficulty created by persons in respect of leases and titles. Where we divided the townland in Cabra, I think it will be found that part of the townland is left outside because of its general configuration. It would not be built on for a considerable time, and if built on would involve considerable difficulties in the matter of drainage. It cannot be drained into the ordinary drainage system of the city, as the slope is in the opposite direction. Our engineering people came to the conclusion that where the townland is divided and part left out, it is left out because it was considered after the fullest possible consideration that it could not be built on.
Did the Minister consult the county council or the local authorities outside in arriving at these delimitations?
I cannot say. We went over every point with the county council and subsequently communicated to them what our proposed division line was. I had an interview with a deputation from the county council concerning certain matters, and it was arising out of that interview I discussed with them the inclusion of the corridor between the City and Howth, so that the county council had every opportunity of making representation to us in regard to the matter of the boundary. I have had representations from the county council in respect of the rating on certain of the added rural areas that have been acceded to. Outside of that I got no representations with regard to the boundary.
Question put and agreed to.
Third Schedule and the Title agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Bill reported.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 18th June.