Vol. 13 No. 28
The first amendment here is a Government amendment and it reads:—
In Section 1, to delete the word "and" in line 53, page 5, and before the word "described" to insert the words "and other land."
This is a drafting amendment. It is referable to amendment 29 which proposes to take in land which would be described as the foreshore.
Amendment No. 2 is a Government amendment to Section 14. It reads:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Every person who is, immediately before the appointed day, an officer of a committee of an abolished body shall, for the purposes of this Act and in particular for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be an officer of such abolished body.
This is merely a drafting amendment. The person who is an officer of the committee of an abolished body stands in the same relationship as an officer of the abolished body itself.
Amendment No 3 to Section 19 is also a Government amendment. It reads:—
Section 19. Before sub-section (5) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5) An agreed adjustment may provide for the payment by the City Corporation to the County Council in one or more instalments or by way of annuity of a sum in respect of the loss of benefit which will be occasioned to the inhabitants of the County as a consequence of the extension of the boundaries of the City by this Act in the case of any benefit which is limited by a restriction on the amount in the pound of the rate which can be raised for the provision of such benefit and the following provisions shall have effect in regard to every sum the payment of which is provided for under this sub-section, that is to say—
(a) every payment received by the County Council in respect of any such sum shall be applied towards the provision of the benefit in respect of which it is paid, and
(b) no such sum shall be taken into account when calculating the amount in the pound which can be raised for providing the benefit in respect of which such sum is paid nor shall the payment of such sum restrict or affect the said amount in the pound."
A normal increase of burden shows itself in an increase of rates. But there may be cases, such as in the working of the Libraries Committee or the Technical Education Committee or the Committee of Agriculture, where there is a limit on rating and that limit has been already attained. The loss of area may then bring about a situation in which top limit of rating will not create the necessary funds to provide the service that had previously been in operation, and possibly the loss of service will, therefore, have to be regarded as an increase of burden.
In view of the provisions of the Vocational Education Bill, will this arrangement still continue where Technical Education Committees are being carried forward by an increase of rates up to 1940? The Minister says there may be a loss by areas being taken away from the County of Dublin. The County Dublin would suffer loss in that way, but that loss will not occur until these rates are increased, because the present limit will be extended as you go ahead.
The work under the Libraries Committee is a clear case, but inasmuch as an additional burden is imposed for technical education purposes as a result of the Vocational Education Bill, that ought not to be regarded as increasing the burden arising out of the Local Government (Dublin) Bill. The increase of burden will have to be worked out, when it is worked out, on the old basis.
Amendment 4 is also a Government amendment. It reads:
Section 20. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5) Every person who is immediately before the appointed day an officer or servant of a committee of the county council shall, for the purposes of this Act and in particular for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be an officer or servant (as the case may be) of the county council, and every person who is immediately before the appointed day an officer or servant of a committee of the board of health shall, for the purposes of this Act and in particular for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be an officer or servant (as the case may be) of the board of health."
This amendment is analogous to amendment 2.
I move amendment 5 to Section 25, sub-section (1). The amendment reads:—
Section 25, sub-section (1). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "when exercising its powers to make any grants referred to in this sub-section, the City Corporation shall treat such of its employees as were previously employed by the county council, the board of health, a rural district council or an abolished body of which the Corporation is the successor not less favourably than if such employees had been employed by the Corporation previous to the passing of this Act."
The substance of this amendment was discussed on the Committee Stage. It seeks to make sure that the new Corporation in discussing the question of allowances for superannuated employees will treat the employees of the urban districts which are being brought in as if they had been employees of the City Corporation. There is a possibility under the Bill as it stands that the new Corporation when dealing with the question of superannuation of redundant employees will make a differentiation between those employees who had been hitherto employed by the old City Corporation and those brought in under the Bill. That is to say that the Pembroke and Rathmines urban employees may be differentiated against. The amendment is indicating very clearly that the intention of the Legislature is that there should be a complete amalgamation, and that the employees of the urban areas will not be treated differently because they were brought in under this Bill, and that whatever differentiation of treatment there will be will be on the merits of the individual case, and not because one was an old employee and the other a new employee. I think it is necessary, and I believe it is also the desire of the House and of the Minister, that there should be no differentiation. Under the Bill as it stands it is possible that there might be differentiation, and I seek in this amendment that there should not be any differentiation made between the employees of the townships that are brought in and the old employees.
I think this matter was discussed on the Electricity Bill. It was there contended that the employees of the Pembroke Township, who had no pensionable rights and who were brought within the scope of the Corporation of Dublin, would be entitled to pensions. That, however, was decided against. It seems to me that this is exactly the same suggestion.
The Bill actually provides that the employees of Rathmines and Pembroke will automatically become employees of the new Dublin City Corporation, and that they will then come in under the pension scheme for workmen that the City Corporation have powers to apply, and that for the purpose of the statutes providing such powers they will be entitled to count service with Rathmines and Pembroke Council towards their superannuation as if their services in Rathmines and Pembroke had been services under the old City Corporation. So that we are bringing the Rathmines and Pembroke employees in under whatever scheme exists in the City. My objection to the amendment is that it is unnecessary and suggests that there may be discrimination. The amendment also suggests that there is a particular standard way of dealing with employees in the City of Dublin, whereas each individual case is dealt with on its merits. It may be suggested that the employees in Rathmines and Pembroke are going to be dealt with in the same way as, say, some one particular person in Dublin is being dealt with, whereas these employees are simply being brought in under the general powers to give pensions. It is being assured that their services in Pembroke and Rathmines will count.
I do not think that the Minister has answered any point which Senator Johnson made, nor has he removed the difficulty that is in our minds. I understand that under certain statutes workmen in the employment of the Dublin Corporation have certain rights as to superannuation allowances and gratuities that the workmen in the employment of the added areas at the present time have not. I think it would be a generous gesture and only fair that in the taking in of the added areas the workmen employed by the disbanded councils should be placed on the same footing as that in which the Dublin workmen are at the present time.
They are being placed on that footing.
If the Minister thinks that they are—and I should be very glad to agree with him if I could— if he thinks that that is the case, then there should be no real objection to clarifying the matter in the way in which Senator Johnson requires. I am glad to know that the Minister is willing that the workmen in Pembroke and Rathmines shall, on the amalgamation of Dublin with the added areas, be placed in the same comparatively advantageous position as the workmen in Dublin now enjoy. I can assure the Minister that so far as I know that would be a considerable advantage to the workmen in the added areas in certain respects at least. If that is the Minister's opinion then all we want is to have it clarified.
The Minister made reference to employment under the Pembroke and Rathmines Councils. I wonder do his remarks apply with the same effect to the employees in the added areas outside Pembroke and Rathmines? The rights of the workmen in the added areas are no less strong morally and otherwise than the rights of the workmen and the employees of the Pembroke and Rathmines Councils. In these areas there are roadmen at present working, the men who sweep the roads and so on. In the ordinary course they may not perhaps get pensions on retirement but the councils would keep them on while they were able to work. On the amalgamation a number of these men will undoubtedly become redundant and unless they are assured the same sort of treatment as if they were the original employees of the Dublin Corporation, it will be open to the new City Council to dispense with their services and give them no pensions. It may be said that no rights which they originally enjoyed are being taken away. But the withdrawal of the customary practice is equivalent to the taking away of rights which these men have enjoyed. It is to prevent that injustice that this amendment is being introduced. I know some of these men and I am aware that there are men with 30 or 40 years' service in that employment. I know they are in a terrible state of trepidation as to what is to become of them now on amalgamation. You cannot compel the new City Corporation to give them a pension, but we should require them to give them the same sort of treatment as they will give the old employees of the Dublin Corporation. The new City amalgamation undoubtedly alters their prospects and their services from the point of view of security of tenure. This amendment requires the Corporation to give equitable treatment to all the new employees.
I am wondering why the Labour Senators are creating a difficulty over this section. To me it seems quite plain that these employees, whether of the county council, the board of health, the rural council, or the urban council, will on being taken over get whatever privileges the Corporation employees at present have. It seems to me most peculiar how anybody who has put in 30 or 40 years' work in one of these outside bodies, with no prospect of a pension, should be in a state of trepidation, now that he is about to be taken over by the Dublin Corporation and given a pension. That is what Senator O'Farrell seems to me to be afraid of.
It is not clear at all.
I cannot see how anybody who has been thirty years working and who has had no pension prospects, and who is now going to get a pension, should be in such a state of trepidation as regards his pension prospects.
I am merely talking of the man dismissed before his time and who is not going to get a pension. I am not talking of the man who will be kept on.
He cannot be dismissed before his time. He will be kept on by the body which will be the successor of the abolished body. namely, the Dublin Corporation. It may be all right from a Labour point of view to agitate this particular question, as it will look well in the Press, but I think it is not worth debating, as it is at present clearly and definitely settled in the Bill.
Can Senators speak a second time on the Report Stage?
No.
The difficulty seems to me to be that the Minister says that under the Corporation system the case of each workman is dealt with individually. It is proposed by the Bill that that system will be applied to all the employees of bodies that are being done away with. The amendment proposes that the workmen transferred from abolished bodies are to be treated not less favourably than if they had been employed by the Corporation prior to the passing of the Act. If the workmen are to be dealt with individually, how can you apply the argument that because So-and-So has been dealt with as an individual in one way, another man who has been working in a totally different area is to be dealt with not less favourably? The whole point is that they have to be dealt with as individual cases and not as a class. The discussion takes place on the individual merits of the case. The Bill gives every individual in the employment of the Corporation the same rights as the existing Dublin Corporation employees have got, and I do not think it is possible for the Bill to give more than that. I think the Minister is perfectly right in saying that the insertion of an amendment of this sort suggests that the Corporation are going to deal differently and more harshly with individual cases that come before them than they would generally. I do not think that we have any reason to believe that such a thing will happen. The Corporation must do what the Bill says, and that is to deal with the employees on the same plane, and that each individual will be dealt with on his merits under the new system just as under the old. I do not see how you can apply in individual cases treatment for a general class. That would really damage the Bill and damage in anticipation the reputation of the people who are going to administer it.
This position is not as simple as the Senator has stated. There are no pension rights at all in Rathmines or Pembroke. In the case of the Dublin workmen, the Corporation has powers to make a superannuation allowance. In Pembroke and Rathmines the councils have no such powers. What the Bill provides is that the powers of the Corporation in respect to these old workmen will apply in respect to the new workmen. That is clear, and it is clear also that as far as the individual whose superannuation is being considered is concerned, his career is considered on its merits. That will apply in the future as in the past. In view of the fact that the expectation of the old Corporation workman is that, at a certain period of his life, he may be superannuated and that there is no such expectation up to now in respect of the employees of the Rathmines and Pembroke Councils, I think there is a considerable risk that the new Corporation of the City of Dublin will treat old employees in one category and new employees in another category. That is to say, they will treat the new employees as persons who never had any expectation of superannuation and the old employees as persons who had expectation of superannuation. I want it to be clear that they will be all treated on the same footing as far as that question is concerned. I think there is a real risk that there is going to be differentiation and I want to prevent that risk, if possible.
Would the Minister look at the last words of the section? If the Minister thinks that there will be no differentiation it may be all right, but I believe the last words in the section do not make it clear enough. The section says that an employee of the Borough Corporation who was previously employed by an abolished body of which the Borough Corporation is the successor shall be entitled to reckon his employment by such abolished body as employment by the Borough Corporation.
That applies to the years.
No, it does not. I think the Minister would be well advised to accept Senator Johnson's amendment.
Amendment put and negatived.
The next amendment is a Government amendment:—
Section 34, sub-section (2). To delete lines 26-36 inclusive and to substitute therefor the words "premises situate in the City or (until the appointed day) in an added urban district or (until the 1st day of April, 1931) in the added rural area and either
(a) such premises are valued under the Valuation Acts at not less than twenty pounds and are occupied by such individual, partnership, unincorporated association, or corporate body wholly for the purpose of carrying on therein any business, profession, trade, manufacture, or other commercial or industrial pursuit, or
(b) such premises are occupied by such individual, partnership, unincorporated association, or corporate body partly for the purpose aforesaid and the proportion of the valuation under the Valuation Acts of such premises which is fairly attributable to the part thereof so occupied is not less than twenty pounds."
Senators will remember that on the occasion of the Second Reading a question arose as to the difficulty of deciding a certain class of case, whether the persons claiming to be on the commercial register were persons who should be on the register, bearing in mind what the register was supposed to represent. It always did appear that there was going to be a difficulty on the part of the registration officer in deciding in a particular class of case. I think the amendments we have now here, amendments 6, 7 and 8, will remove entirely any difficulties in that particular way. This amendment provides that the basis of the franchise will be the occupation of premises whether they be whole buildings or part of buildings, the valuation of such premises being not less than £20 and their occupation being for the purpose of carrying on any business, trade, profession or manufacture. It means then that instead of the franchise being based on occupation for commercial purposes, on a building of £20 valuation and upwards, wholly or partly occupied for commercial purposes, the franchise shall be based on the occupation of premises of a valuation of £20 or upwards for commercial purposes, whether these premises are in whole or in part separately valued premises or not. The result is that the widest possible latitude can be given to deciding whether a particular class of business is a business within the meaning of this particular Act. I recommend the change in this section to the Seanad.
I wish to ask the Minister whether these new amendments refer at all to premises where the occupation is in respect of residence as well as for business. Will a person who lives in a building of £20 valuation have a vote as an ordinary voter and have a vote under the commercial register?
A person may have a vote on the ordinary local government register and have a vote on the commercial register. In order to have a vote under the commercial franchise, if a person is resident in a particular house and has the ordinary local government franchise in respect of the occupation of that house, and if he wants to get on the commercial register now, there must be part of the house of a valuation of £20 and upwards occupied for definite business purposes.
They get the double franchise if they occupy the premises.
The Minister on the Second Reading of the Bill referred to the extreme difficulty there would be in preparing the first register. I think he is increasing the difficulties as time goes on. If only part of a house of £30 valuation is used for business in respect of which a commercial vote can be obtained, that is certain rooms, how is he in the time at his disposal to make an apportionment of the valuation as between the rooms used for commercial purposes and the rooms that are not? Who is to be the person to decide that question? Is it to be the City Manager? I would suggest to the Minister that the difficulties of apportionment under this new clause will be very great indeed, and will involve a considerable amount of time, and that perhaps in this first register at least, and in fact in all the registers that he makes up under the commercial franchise, he should avoid these difficulties of apportionment. In my judgment the sub-section that is now proposed will lead to endless difficulty. It makes the commercial franchise even more reactionary than it was intended to be, and really it is against that extension of this commercial franchise we urged on the Second Reading of the Bill.
Undoubtedly these amendments are intended to restrict still further the number of persons who are to be entitled to elect these five supermen—these special commercial members of the Council. The Bill as drafted made it possible, as was pointed out earlier, for a very considerable number of people to be considered as commercial electors. This proposes to limit that number very greatly indeed. Following what Senator Comyn said, I, too, would like to ask who is to be the judge of what is the valuation of that part of the premises occupied for business purposes only. Is it to be the registration officer? If it is the Minister will now see how he may affect the quality of the register. If the registration officer is to be the valuation authority in the matter he may decide that the valuation of one premises is to be £19 and the valuation of another premises to be £21. The house is divided into two, one part being occupied for residential purposes and the other for business purposes. This is the person who is to decide whether it shall be £19 or £21.
I think the amendment is unjustified. Undoubtedly it makes still finer the collection of persons who are to be in this special privileged position, but in addition to that it is throwing on some person unnamed the right to say what the valuation of part of the premises used for business purposes is to be. I do not know anybody else who is going to decide that except, in the first instance, the registration officer who is also the City Manager. I think the amendment is not worthy of support.
The person who will have to decide the valuation of a particular part of the premises will be the registration officer. He is the person who does that under the Electoral Act when a vote on the Dáil register is claimed in respect of the occupation of premises for business purposes. As regards the difficulties of the registration officer in the matter, he will simply act through the ordinary machinery. He will have the assistance of the rate collectors and all the other assistance he receives in making up the franchise. He has to be very careful, because if he turns down an elector who seeks to be registered, then that elector, if he desires to do so, can appeal, and the matter will be decided by the Circuit Court on case stated.
On case stated for the Circuit Court? If that were to be done you would have counsel appearing, and it would take twelve months before the matter was ended.
Is it the Senator's contention that each particular claim and each objection that goes before the Circuit Court for decision is going to take twelve months?
I do not wish to make this matter more difficult than it is, and I assure the House that I want to be helpful, but I wonder whether the officials in the Minister's Department understand the extreme difficulty of making apportionments of valuations. My experience has been that it is one of the most difficult things possible. The apportionment must be made by a person who has a knowledge of the value of property. A number of professional men are attached to the valuation office and in various cases they make these apportionments of valuations. My experience has been that they usually take three or four months. If I may say so with respect to the House, I do not think that the difficulties of this section are at all appreciated.
The imputation is made in the objections offered to this amendment that it is going to alter, in some way or other, the class and number of electors qualified to act in connection with this commercial franchise. Senator Comyn's objection to the amendment is that it would be difficult to carry out. I take it that the Minister has brought it forward for departmental reasons; that he has been told that it is the easiest way to carry out what is already in the Bill. I feel quite certain that the imputation cannot be sustained that this is an attempt to try and alter the class and number of electors who are to go on this commercial franchise. If there is anything in that contention, Senator Johnson will be able to speak for himself, but I imagine the Minister will not admit that for a moment: that the amendment is being brought in to alter the number of the electors under this franchise—to decrease or increase them in number, and give greater privileges to those who are left. Putting it in plain language that is, I think, what Senator Johnson meant to imply. Personally, I cannot see that at all. The Minister should tell us definitely whether this amendment is brought forward for departmental reasons: to make clearer what is already in the Bill, or can he contradict the imputation in the Senator's statement?
The Senator is right to this extent that under the Bill originally it would be possible for a person with a six-roomed house having a valuation of £25, in which she herself occupied only one room for the purpose of carrying on a dressmaking business, to get on the commercial register. With that possibility before us, and considering the classes of business that might be carried on in one room of a house with such accommodation and with such a valuation, it appeared to us that there was a loophole in the proposals we were making as the Bill came from the Dáil. If such a thing could occur as I have mentioned it would be contrary to our conception of what the commercial franchise should be. We said that we would have to get a firmer basis upon which the commercial franchise could be built up.
In this amendment the basis that is proposed is the occupation of premises with a £20 valuation, so that the person occupying a house with that valuation and living in it must occupy four-fifths of it for actual business purposes before he or she can get on the commercial register. Because of that it does reduce the number of possible electors who will get on this commercial franchise. There will be a certain amount of reduction. But I submit that the reduction, even to the extent to which it was likely to come about under the old system, will not be so great. Whether the reduction will be great or not it is just because it was not our conception that a person having a local government vote should also get on the commercial franchise in respect of the value of the small portion of the house in which he also carried on business. Our conception of the commercial register is based on this: that a very large amount of rates have been paid in respect of buildings occupied for commercial and trade purposes, and in respect of which there has been no representation good, bad or indifferent in the past. There is that reduction, but it is not a reduction that has been brought about for the purpose of narrowing down this franchise to its narrowest limits. Our object in bringing forward this franchise at all is to give representation of a particular kind to persons engaged in business on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to persons paying rates in respect of property for which, up to the present, they have had no representation.
Take the case of a lodging house keeper. She is living in a house with a £30 valuation. The only portion of the house that she occupies herself is an attic. Would she come on the commercial register?
Take it, say, that a person is carrying on in a £40 house the business of keeping lodgers and that more than half the house is devoted to the lodgers, then she is entitled to go on the commercial register. The fact that you make the occupation of a house with a £20 valuation your basis enables the registration officer to put the widest possible interpretation on what is the business, trade or industry carried on in the premises.
I move amendment 9:—
Section 53, sub-section (6). To delete the words "Council shall with the sanction of the Minister" inserted in Committee and to substitute therefor the words "Minister shall."
The insertion of this sub-section was moved by Senator Comyn on behalf of Senator Colonel Moore in Committee, and it was to delete the words in the Bill as it then stood "The Minister shall" and to substitute therefor the words "The Council shall with the sanction of the Minister." This alteration of the sub-section revives the question which was discussed at considerable length on the Report Stage of the Cork Bill when a similar amendment was inserted at the instance of Senator Johnson and was reversed on the Report Stage. The amendment inserted on the Committee Stage here serves no useful purpose but on the contrary is likely to provide a very possible source of friction between the Manager and the Council. In moving this amendment in Committee Senator Comyn said: "I think the amendment follows the practice that has been adopted in local government matters ever since the Poor Law Acts were passed. The fixing of the salaries of public officials was always the function of the elected bodies, subject, of course, to the approval of the Minister, who generally secured that the employee of the Council or the local bodies got a reasonable rate of pay. I think there is no reason why the case of the City Manager should be differentiated from the case of other officials and public bodies." I think with all his vast knowledge of statutes Senator Comyn shows some inadequate knowledge of this particular subject when he made that statement. The powers that he sought to restore to this sub-section by this amendment cropped up in the case of the Cork Bill.
Sub-section (6) of Section 10 provided that there shall be paid by the Council to the Manager such remuneration as the Minister shall from time to time determine, and so on. The presumption which is made in Senator Comyn's speech that this is a departure from the customary practice is entirely inaccurate and misleading. At the time of the Cork Bill I pointed out, at considerable length, the fact that the Minister already possessed this power in regard to many public services. I do not think it is necessary to quote these now, but if anybody wishes to verify them he will find references in my statement to the Acts in which these powers are conferred by statute on the Minister.
The motion that I made on the Report Stage on that occasion was seconded by Senator Dowdall. I think the arguments that were most pertinent to this matter are very well summarised by what he then said in regard to this on the Cork Bill: that it would be possible for certain local reasons, possibly political, or influences arising out of impending local elections, and in a desire to curry favour with the electors, for members to propose a certain inadequate scale of remuneration in order to carry an economy scheme before the electors. Senator Dowdall, speaking of the Cork City Bill on the 20th February, 1928, said: "For this reason I see the force of what Senator Milroy says, that they would put every obstacle in the way of fixing the proper remuneration of a good man, whereas a man who was independent and who really worked as he saw fit and proper in the interests of the duty with which he was charged might not get such remuneration as his services would entitle him to." Senator Dowdall was concerned on that occasion with the experiment in City Managership, which was given effect to in the Cork Act, and that it should not be the subject of embarrassment and unnecessary interference by which friction might arise from an individual who was appointed as Manager, having to depend upon the goodwill or possibly upon the caprice of some section of the Council. He was anxious that the experiment should be given the best possible chance of success, by the elimination of all causes of friction as between the Council and the Manager. I think the same holds good in regard to the Dublin City Manager. You could easily make difficulties by retaining the amendment that was made in Committee and by having a different class of provision for the capital City of Dublin from that of Cork. You could create possibly serious difficulties and embarrassment for both Council and Manager, and thereby lessen the chances of this Bill reaching a full measure of success.
I think it is not desirable that that should be our object. I think it is desirable that the fullest possible chance of successfully working this measure should be aimed at. I think that chance of securing every possible measure of success is undoubtedly increased if the Manager is removed from this environment of possible friction which I think undoubtedly would arise if this amendment inserted in Committee is retained. For that reason I move the deletion of the words in the sub-section.
I second.
I object to this amendment for two reasons. One is that this matter was discussed at length here in a good House.
There were only eighteen present.
It was discussed anyway at great length and was carried. I think it is contrary to the usage of the House as a rule and possibly in the new Standing Order it may be found that once a motion is carried in Committee it cannot be altered at a later stage.
It is not contrary to the practice of the House so far.
It has been done I admit, but not I think in matters of principle or of very great importance. It is generally only when it is a matter of wording or something of that sort. Anyway, I think it is unreasonable at this stage to bring in a motion over-ruling what was done in Committee of the whole Seanad. Then there is the question of right in this matter. The matter was raised at length in the Committee Stage and it can hardly be gone into again now. It is a question of money and the right of the people to allot the amount of money that they are to pay to the City Manager or anyone else. The amount of money should be fixed by the people who pay. That is how things are done in the Dáil. The Dáil allocates a certain sum of money to go for a certain purpose and that has to be carried out. It is not the Minister who finds the money but the very reverse, and the Minister can do nothing to alter the amount allotted. For that reason I think the Council are the body to state how much should be paid and to authorise and fix the amount. Therefore I object to this amendment.
I notice that the first seven amendments on the Paper are starred as Government amendments. This amendment now moved by Senator Milroy, which would reverse a decision arrived at after a long debate in Committee in the Seanad, is not starred. I want to know now whether Senator Milroy is speaking officially.
Cannot the Senator make up his mind on the merits of this question?
This is not a Government amendment.
I take it that the Senator is not speaking officially but semi-officially on this occasion. I am greatly surprised the Minister has come forward with this amendment. He was present when the matter was discussed and he heard the argument why the Corporation should be the persons to fix the salary, reserving to the Minister the right to see that the salary was a proper one. That was the meaning of the amendment which was in the name of Senator Colonel Moore. He heard the argument and he saw the Seanad arrived at the conclusion after discussion that the council and not the Minister should be the person to fix the salary in the first instance. But notwithstanding that, he comes forward now on the Report Stage hoping, of course, to have his battalions present here who never heard the arguments but who will vote for this Government or quasi-Government amendment. In reference to that, I wish to state that we have given constant attendance to this House and we have, to the best of our ability, endeavoured to improve legislation. We have not been as recalcitrant as we might be or ought to be, but I say this: on three or four occasions on very important Bills, some of them dealing with the Gaeltacht and some with the country generally, amendments proposed from these benches commended themselves to the majority of this House. The Minister was the Minister in charge of some of these particular measures, and on every occasion he came forward again on Report Stage and reversed the beneficial amendments which we had carried. Now the Minister ought to know that the best soldier is the man who accepts, in a soldierly spirit, the reverses that come across his path. The Minister will accept nothing that he considers a reversal, even though it is an improvement in the legislation of this country. On that ground, and apart altogether from the merits which, I say, are with us on this amendment, I for one must protest against the practice of trying to reverse on the Report Stage amendments which on our proposal have commended themselves to the judgment of the House on the Committee Stage.
I notice three amendments on the Order Paper in. the name of Senator Milroy, all of which propose the deletion of some amendments inserted on the Committee Stage. The Senator seems to act here in the capacity of a quasi-ministerial wet blanket, whose mission is to damp down any attempt to do anything but talk. Repeatedly he has shown that to be his great object here. His mission is to prevent us from doing anything except, of course, talk. Certainly I would not support the amendment that was carried on the Committee Stage if I thought there was any chance that the new Corporation would for any reason whatever pay the new City Manager an inadequate salary. But we must have regard to the practice in the past, and it will be generally admitted that the payment of small salaries to Corporation officials could never be levelled as a truthful charge against the Dublin Corporation. The charge was all on the other side, that they paid not only their officers but their employees exorbitant salaries. I do not think there is any danger that they are going to pay an inadequate salary to the City Manager. If they are inclined to be extravagant, of course, the Minister has a veto over them, and they can only pay such salary as he may sanction.
Under this amendment the Corporation shall pay with the sanction of the Minister, so that he can prevent extravagance, and there is no danger, and no justification for saying that an inadequate salary will be paid. It will, at least, give the Corporation the honour of saying what salary it shall pay. It is really nothing more. It is a certain power, though not a valuable power, but it gives them the same right which the Dáil has to fix the salaries of Ministers, and which this House has to fix the salaries of its own officers. I think that at least that much might be conceded to the Corporation. Senator Milroy quoted the Cork Act, and says that we should not depart from the principle of that Act in this respect. I would reply to him that there is no commercial register in the Cork Act, and that we have departed from the Cork Act in more respects than that. Certainly that argument does not hold water. I would have more faith in the City Corporation fixing an adequate salary than I would have in the Government fixing an adequate salary, because their tendency is all the other way round. We had it in the Shannon Scheme, we had it in the Civil Service, and also in the payment of teachers and Civic Guards. The tendency is to cut down, so that it is not an argument at all in favour of Senator Milroy's amendment to say that the Government is going to pay a reasonable salary, while the Dublin Corporation will not.
I had not the advantage of being in the House when this subject was discussed in Committee. I would therefore like to state very shortly my reason for supporting the amendment of Senator Milroy. My objection to Senator Moore's amendment is this: it provides that the salary of the Manager is to be fixed by the Corporation with the approval of the Minister. I object to that because it would very likely result in an unpleasant and an indecent controversy between the Minister and the Corporation, if the Corporation did not fix a proper salary. That is not a desirable state of affairs. My second reason for supporting the amendment of Senator Milroy is this: what you want to do is to get the best possible Manager. You must get the best man. That is what you are out to do. In my opinion you will not get the best man unless the Minister has the fixing of the salary. That is the surest way of getting the best man. With reference to what my friend Senator Comyn said about the practice of this House in reversing on the Report Stage amendments that were agreed to in Committee, I do not agree with him that that has been the practice here. My experience is that it is quite contrary to the practice of this House. I would like to know what is the meaning of the Report Stage and what is the use of the Report Stage if we are not to consider amendments that were put in on the Committee Stage. That is what the Report Stage is for. Therefore we are not acting in any way contrary to our practice in voting for the amendment.
On a point of explanation. What I said was that every amendment we carried in Committee on any Bill piloted through the House by the Minister for Local Government had been attempted to be reversed on the Report Stage.
Senator Brown's case is that he is very anxious the best man should be appointed——
He is appointed already.
——and that cannot be unless the Minister has power to fix the salary.
That is my opinion.
We do not know what the salary is to be, but I presume that Gerald Jarlath Sherlock knows. Is that the real meaning of this particular amendment? We have already decided that Gerald Jarlath Sherlock shall be the City Manager. As to whether he is the best man, we are simply taking the advice of the Minister in that respect, and in the future any new appointments are to be made by the Minister on the recommendation of the Local Appointments Commission. Whether the salary is fixed by the Minister or by the Council it will not affect the decision of the Local Appointments Commission, so that we are equal in that respect. Whether the salary is to be fixed by the Minister or by the Corporation I am sure the salary will be named before the applications are sent in, so that it makes no difference who is to fix the salary. The fact is the Corporation has to pay and that the Council is accepting the assurance given by the Minister, to be the supreme authority because of the fact that it fixes the rates.
Surely it is sufficient to say that it is the Council should be the body to determine the salary of the City Manager and Town Clerk, always subject to the possible veto of the Minister. The very section we are dealing with proves that there is no difference whatever in respect to the selection of the best man and as to who shall fix the salary. The best man will be selected by the Local Appointments Commission in future from a list of applicants for the post, and in the present case he is already fixed, presumably being the best man, so that it makes no difference in fact whether the Council fixes the salary, subject to the veto of the Minister, or whether the Corporation shall do as it is told by the Minister. I think this body should at least stand up for the right of the Corporation, which is administering the rates of the city, and should determine such a matter as the remuneration of the Town Clerk and City Manager.
I wonder did Senator Johnson at all visualise a situation in which the City Manager and the Corporation are more or less at daggers drawn, and if the City Manager's proceedings are being quarrelled with by the Corporation authorities, which is probable, with this new arrangement coming into force. The amendment which Senator Johnson wants to adhere to gives the Corporation power to propose a reduction of the Manager's salary. That can only be vetoed by the Minister. I think the Senator can see that there are a number of very high class men who would not place themselves in a position where their salary, because they were doing their duty, could be reduced except there was a veto by the Minister. The Minister in asking us to adhere to the Bill as it was originally drawn is only asking us to use our commonsense, by taking care that the new Manager cannot be put into the extremely difficult situation that I have described. The individual case at the present does not matter.
I was one of the members present during the debate on the amendment, and I believe the division was taken at a very late hour in the evening when there were very few of us here—only eighteen out of the whole House, as many of the Senators had gone home. Now an awkward situation is going to arise if we are to adhere to that amendment carried by a small majority out of a very small number of Senators present, as the Bill will go back to the Dáil with this amendment. I think there is very little doubt but that the Dáil will then object to it and the Bill will have to come back to us again. If the Seanad mean to adhere to their decision that the salary should be fixed by the Corporation, subject to the veto of the Minister instead of by the Minister, then a fairly full Seanad, as we have now, should make up their minds that they were going to stand for this and are going to have immense delay as a consequence. Undoubtedly, the Dáil will not agree to it.
The Senator is presupposing that the Dáil will overrule the Seanad.
The Senator may say so if he likes.
I will be allowed, I suppose, by the Senator to have my supposition. At all events I can visualise the position. If the Senators decide they will not accept Senator Milroy's amendment they will give the Corporation power to interfere with the salary of their Manager. If Senators refuse to accept Senator Milroy's amendment they will do it with the knowledge that the Bill will certainly meet with difficulties, and I think none of the Senators want that.
The Commissioners would still continue.
That may be so, but I want the Seanad to consider what they are doing. Senator Comyn made some references to reversing amendments adopted in Committee, and as Senator Brown has said, that has often been done. What often happens is that when it comes to the Report Stage we have time to reconsider amendments, and it very often occurs that an amendment is altered by agreement arrived at. That is not the case now. This is a clear issue on which undoubtedly a vote will have to be taken. I am only advising Senators to remember what will happen if we decide to adhere to the decision of a small majority of our number that passed the amendment on the Committee Stage. That would undoubtedly be damaging the position of future managers of the Corporation and putting this House into a most unpleasant position.
I hope the Seanad will not regard me as the unreasonable type of person Senator Comyn suggests. The Senator's Party sometimes talk of a national civil service. That, I suppose, would mean that the control and decisions of a central authority would be accepted in the different offices, and would apply to the different positions under local authorities, in the same way as the rates paid are standardised and accepted in the Post Offices throughout the country. Without going to the length of that, we have endeavoured from time to time to standardise the outlook on the salaries that are to be paid to officials, such as county surveyors, county medical officers of health and doctors in charge of particular classes of hospitals. In spite of Senator O'Farrell's suggestion, we have had very great differences between some local bodies as to the amount of salaries that ought to be paid in the case of some very important technical and pivotal officials, with the power of doing good work, and effecting very considerable economies because of the efficient management of the departments they administer. Our trouble has been invariably that we have not been able to persuade them in the matter of proper salaries. In those cases in which we have over-ruled local authorities we have taken serious exception to the amount of the salary they were suggesting for these particular classes of persons. In the case of the city manager, as was argued pretty fully in dealing with the Cork Bill, when we have the machinery such as we have and can take a decision in the full light of knowledge of what is reasonable to be paid to people in managerial positions, that we should make the question of a salary the subject of discussion at the Cork City Council or the Dublin Council is entirely unreasonable. We have, as I stated, the machinery by which the salary can be suggested. To put that salary under discussion at the Council either in the first instance or during the service of the manager would only give rise to all kinds of unpleasantness and friction and things that are undesirable of one kind or another.
Senator Milroy thinks to give the council the power to fix the salary may create unpleasantness between the Council and the manager. I think it may create undesirable relations between the Council and the manager. My idea is that it is very likely to create unpleasantness between the Council and the Department. It can create more than unpleasantness; it can create an absolute deadlock, for the Council can say "we will not agree to a particular salary for the manager." Senator Colonel Moore's amendment was brought forward in respect of the manager alone. Out of all the officials in the whole sphere of local government, the Minister would be precluded from over-riding the Council in the matter of fixing his salary and deprived of the powers which he has in respect of any other council in the whole sphere of local government. In the first place, the Minister should not be deprived in respect of the manager of the power he has with regard to other officials, such as in the case of county surveyors, medical officers of health and doctors in charge of hospitals. He should not be prevented from overruling the Council if he cannot reconcile his judgment with the judgment of the Council. The amendment accepted on the Committee Stage would prevent that. But why we cannot take the machinery that is there and remove the whole question of salary from the field of discussion by the Council, and of discussion between the Council and the manager, and discussion between the Council and the Minister, I do not understand. I submit that the most reasonable position is that the Minister should have power to fix a salary, and then the Council is only concerned with whether the manager is carrying out the administration of the City properly or not, and their hands would be completely clean and untied in the matter of either reviewing the administration of the city or finding fault if it is not being properly administered.
Amendment No. 10 is a drafting amendment. It reads:—
10. Section 66, sub-section (1). After the word "Corporation" in line 16 to insert the words "and collected and recovered as part of the municipal rate," and after the word "Corporation" in line 18 to add the words "and collected and recovered as part of the municipal rate."
Amendments 11, 12 and 13 are intended to clear up the position with regard to rates on small dwellings. The amendments read:—
11. Section 72, sub-section (2). After the word "City" in line 19 to insert the words "which is not a small dwelling within the meaning of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928, (No. 4 of 1928), and," and in lines 23 and 24 to delete the words "the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928 (No. 4 of 1928)" and to substitute therefor the words "that Act."
12. Section 72, sub-section (2). To delete lines 26-29 inclusive and to substitute therefor the words "hereinafter mentioned."
13. Section 72. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) In the case of a 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 and either is or is deemed by virtue of the foregoing sub-section of this section to be a small dwelling within the meaning of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928, Section 10 of that Act shall be construed and have effect as if the expression ‘eight-tenths' was substituted for the expression ‘nine-tenths' in sub-section (1) thereof."
Section 72 deals with the position of dwellings that come under the Rates on Small Dwellings Act. I drew attention on the Committee Stage to the effect of Section 72, and I said that the Corporation by an old Act have power in respect of certain classes of premises that were suitable for, and actually occupied by, artisans and labourers, and as to which they accepted certain control in respect of their repair and general sanitary conditions, to enter into arrangements with the owners of these houses and give them a reduction in their rates to the extent of one-fifth, provided that the rates are paid within a certain definite period of time. The Rates on Small Dwellings Act secures in respect of small dwellings occupied by persons other than the owners that there shall be a reduction in rates of one-tenth if the rates are paid at a particular period of time. Section 72 with the amendments proposed here secures for the Corporation the power under their old Act in respect of dwellings suitable for artisans and occupied by artisans; and even though greater than the limit of £8 valuation the council can, if it pass a resolution bringing under its definite control repairs and sanitary arrangements, continue the powers to give a remission of rates to the extent of one-sixth. Small dwellings proper of less than £8 valuation can be given a remission of one-fifth instead of one-tenth of the rates if the council passes such a resolution. That concession of one-tenth is available to the owners of small dwellings whether these dwellings come under the sanitary control of the Corporation or not.
I raised some doubts on the last occasion as to the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 72. I was not able to follow the Minister's explanation as to the intentions of the Bill. I think the amendments now make clear the intention of the Bill, much more definitely than the original draft.
Amendment 14 to Section 88 reads:
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) A division of the City (including the added rural area) and the Borough respectively into two or more school attendance areas under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the School Attendance Act, 1926, and the appointment of a school attendance committee under sub-section (3) of the said section 10 for any school attendance area co-terminous with or included in the City (including the added rural area) or the Borough may be made before the 1st day of April, 1931, to take effect on that day."
This amendment is drafted in order to enable schemes for school attendance areas to be prepared before 1st April, so that they may be put into operation on 1st April.
While on this matter, may I ask the Minister whether the present school attendance committees will continue to act until 1st April of next year, or is there any arrangement in the Bill for a new authority to be set up in the meantime?
I understand that the position is that they will continue. I think the present school attendance committees will cease, but the borough will be responsible for appointing school attendance committees in respect of the present areas.
My point is rather in respect of the council. I mean with regard to the taking over by the council on the appointed day. There is a certain appointed day for the establishment of the council, but the actual work of the new authority will not begin until 1st April next year. Is that to apply in respect of school attendance? That is to say, are the present school attendance committees to continue in office until 1st April of next year? I am thinking of the Rathmines School Attendance Committee.
Yes, I am informed that the present school attendance committees will continue until 1st April next year.
Amendment 15 is a Government amendment to Section 89. It reads:
"To delete the words ‘is to come' in line 65 and to substitute therefor the word ‘came.'"
This is to make more reasonable the provision that Senator Johnson drew attention to on Committee Stage.
Amendment 16 to Section 89 is also a Government amendment. It reads:
16. Section 89. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) The registration officer for the county shall, as soon as conveniently may be after the passing of this Act and before the day of election, so amend the said register of electors as to give effect to the foregoing sub-section of this section and the said register of electors as so amended shall for all purposes be the register of electors for the county in force until the 1st day of June, 1931."
It is consequential on amendment No. 15.
Amendment 17 is a Government amendment, and reads:
17. Section 95, sub-section (3). To delete all after the word "separately" in line 42 to the end of the sub-section, and to substitute therefor the words "at the several places at which the City Corporation is, immediately before the appointed day, required by law to deliver water for use in the respective areas forming at the passing of this Act the coastal urban districts, but all water so delivered shall be deemed to be delivered for use in the borough generally."
This is a drafting amendment to secure the present status quo as regards the points at which the City deliveries of water to the different parts of the new boroughs are made.
Before Senator Milroy moves amendment 18 to Section 101 I think my four amendments to that section should be taken. These are the amendments on the Order Paper. I will move all my amendments together. They read:
19a. Section 101, sub-section (3). To delete the sub-section.
19b. Section 101, sub-section (4). To delete the sub-section
19c. Section 101. To delete the new sub-section inserted in Committee before sub-section (5).
19d. New section. Before Section 102 to insert a new section as follows:—
"102.—(1) 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.
(2) Where it appears to the Minister that any local, personal or private Act or any order relating to any of the coastal 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 Borough, and upon such order being made the provisions specified therein of such Act or order shall not apply in or in relation to the Borough.
(3) No order made under this section shall come into force unless and until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and has been approved by resolution of each such House."
I am asking the House to take all together as they practically deal with the one matter. Section 101 is a section which gives the Minister power by Order to modify or adapt or apply all Private Bills, Local Bills and Orders affecting the different parts of the areas which now become the new city and the different parts of the coastal borough. The section gave the Minister power by Order to deal with these Private Bills and Orders. That power was objected to on the grounds that it was legislation by the Department or by the Minister. The section contains a sub-section which only gave the House power during 21 days after the Order was laid by the Minister on the Table of the House to object to the Order. By a majority the House decided that that was going too far, if I may put it that way. I was not present when the amendment was carried, when the Bill was in Committee. It occurred to me that a distinction might be made between the sub-sections. Sub-section (2) of the section as it stands is the one that gives the Minister power by Order to adapt or modify any private, personal or local Act or Order relating to the existing city or coastal borough which may be necessary for carrying this Bill into effect. The same sub-section also gives him power to apply to the whole city or the whole coastal area private, personal or local Acts or Orders which apply to any part of what will become the whole city or the whole coastal borough area. To that extent there is a precedent for what the Bill did. That is to say, we have already gone so far as to give the Minister power to adapt, modify or to apply. There is a precedent for that. There is a great deal to be said for what the Minister told us when the Bill was in Committee, that if we insist on this House giving its approval to every Order that the Minister makes, it will cause an extremely large amount of unnecessary trouble to his Department. Whether or not we were right in giving up the principle that there should be no legislation by a Department or by a Minister, we have already done so, and probably there is a very fair excuse for it, because in the complicated questions that arise in a case like this it would be practically impossible to carry on the work if the Minister had not in fact power to make an Order.
When we come to (3) and (4) of this section we find that they are on a totally different basis; (3) and (4) give the Minister power to declare that certain kinds of local or private Acts shall not apply to the whole City or to the coastal borough. In other words, it gives the Minister power to repeal Acts of Parliament. That is going beyond what any Bill has done before. I suggest that we ought not to allow the Minister to go to that extent. Therefore I have put down four amendments. The first three of them provide that the Minister's Orders, which are purely Orders to modify, adapt or apply these private Bills, shall only come before the House in the shape of Papers laid before the House and they are not to be disallowed unless there is an order of the House to annul them within 21 days. In reference to the orders which the Minister has to make under (3) and (4), amendment 19d provides that orders of that kind must not only be laid on the Table of the House, but that before they come into operation at all they must receive the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I move that these subsections be deleted. The four amendments in my name carry out this, and I will therefore move them separately. I move to delete sub-section (3) of Section 101.
I think the amendment has to be seconded, and I therefore beg to second it. I hope the Minister will agree to, and that the House will adopt, the suggestion made by Senator Brown. I think some of us, though we voted for the amendment proposed on the last occasion, were impressed by the argument of the Minister that a very large mass of details would have to come before the House in the case of the adaptation of a considerable number of private Acts. By the way, I may say that there seems to have been a good deal of misunderstanding as to the meaning of the words "private Acts." The term "private Acts" does not mean private Acts of an individual. It means Acts of the respective local bodies which were passed by Parliament as a result of the Private Bill procedure of Parliament in England and possibly in a few cases here. The only Acts that can be adapted are Acts which relate to the City or the area covered by the Bill. The adapting of the several Acts, which means the adjustment of a particular area, is not to my mind a matter which would require the time of Parliament or require a lot of explanation.
The repealing of a whole Act is the matter we are up against in principle. We have given the Minister power by Order, in the one case, laid on the Table of the House, which could be annulled by the House within twenty-one sitting days. In the other case, to ask for a definite resolution appears to meet fairly the case made by the Minister on the one hand and by the House on the other. I think it should be made perfectly clear at the same time that in neither case are we legislating by resolution as has been the practice on the other side. In both cases the power of the Oireachtas is clearly maintained. We know that the passing of a definite resolution might take up a good deal of the time of the Minister. We know that where there is any resolution required it will be moved, but we know that no resolution will be moved unless some member of the council thinks it has a grievance and he will get a member of the Seanad to move the resolution. I think that is right in the case of adapting actual Acts which apply to the area.
I know that this is a matter to which the Seanad on more than one occasion has given a certain amount of thought. As far as the amendment of Senator Brown goes, if I could get the amendment with a certain amount of good will I would be certainly glad to have some modification of the position as it is at present, although I do not know that this will be the last word that will be said in regard to the whole matter at this particular stage. It will give me certainly a sufficient latitude to carry on without the very considerable amount of rather unnecessary detail and trouble involved for myself personally and for the Seanad and the Dáil under the other arrangement suggested. I would be grateful to have the amendment which the Senator has moved as a contribution to this whole question.
There is just one thing that I think might be said in view of the Senator's criticism of the original proposal and in view of the criticism in which some Senators indulged on the Committee Stage. Senator Sir John Keane, Senator Colonel Moore, Senator Comyn and Senator Johnson, I think, on a previous occasion all referred to a particular book written by the Lord Chief Justice of England. Senator Sir John Keane said that taking into consideration his responsibilities and the fact that he went to the trouble of writing a book on this matter he must have thought very gravely about it. The Senator was very drastic in his criticism of the Government and I was forced by the impression which his speech made on my mind to look up this book and to go through it. It is a complete justification, as far as I could gather anything from it, of our procedure in this whole matter. I think the Senator will find that one of the complaints in the book referred to was that in not one per cent. of the legislation in the British Houses of Parliament do they make provision for the laying of these Orders by the Minister on the Table of the House. I think that in practically every case —with the exception of the Cork Bill, if I might mention it—that is the practice with us. There have been cases in which a prior resolution had to be adopted, but there was always something separate there.
The general lines of criticism in that book, so far as I could understand them, were that Ministers in the British House of Commons are enabled to issue Orders behind the back of Parliament and that they are able to make decisions that are withdrawn from review and control by the courts. Our provisions as they were originally drafted enabled the Minister to make Orders but the Dáil and Seanad had power within twenty-one subsequent sitting days to annul these Orders. These Orders were certainly not doing the work behind the back of Parliament. They were fully open to revision by the courts if the Orders went outside the very limited powers that were given the Minister—that is, to make Orders inside the limits and for the purpose of carrying out the particular Act that was involved. We should not, I think, be driven along the unnecessary, laborious and not very logical line of thinking of what other people say about one another without knowing what they do say about one another. We can more satisfactorily solve our own problems by looking into them themselves and bringing our own minds to bear on them. It seems to me that that is not a thing that has been done upon this general question up to the present. Again I might say in regard to this particular amendment that I am grateful to have it as an alternative to what is now in the Bill.
I attempted to make clear in regard to the amendment that was carried on the last occasion that it was perhaps a crude amendment. I am very glad to have the amendment suggested in the more finished form by Senator Brown now. I just want to reply to one assertion of the Minister. He coupled me with Senator Sir John Keane and others in having quoted in support of this particular line of criticism the Lord Chief Justice of England. I have been rather careful not to do that. I might have made mention of the fact that similar criticisms have been levelled at the British practice, and to a much greater degree than here, but I have recognised, and I publicly stated it in the House, that there was necessity for the Minister having power to modify and adapt certain classes of legislation. I have never gone so far as to think that the criticism levelled by Lord Justice Hewart was applicable to this country. I think it must be clear to the House when we are giving the Minister power, as is proposed in the Bill, to amend and to annul the effect of a private Act, so far as it may affect the City and borough, that that is legislative power which surely the Oireachtas should retain for itself. That is all I contend, and I do not think it is true to say, as it has been said, that all the criticisms levelled against certain recent British practices are justifiably levelled against practices in this country.
I think that amendment No. 19, standing in the name of Senator Milroy, is also necessary.
I move amendment No. 19:
Section 101, sub-section (6). To delete the words "sub-section (5) of" inserted in Committee.
That amendment is practically consequential.
|
“Name of Town-land. |
District Electoral Division in which situate. |
|
Kimmage (parish of Crumlin) |
Terenure.” |
This is a drafting amendment, rendered necessary by the fact that there are two townlands of the same name.
Amendment 28 is as follows:—
First Schedule, Part II. To add at the end of the Schedule the following:—
"That portion of the Townland of Artane South in the District Electoral Division of Drumcondra Rural and the Rural District of North Dublin which lies to the South of the road from Donnycarney Bridge to Puckstown."
We have been desirous not to divide up a townland if it could possibly be avoided, because of the consequent legal difficulties that would arise. In this case it has been made plain, owing to the nature of the development that is going on in that area, that we should divide the townland concerned and take away this particular area, which would otherwise run as a small salient from the county across the road into a part of the city. As a result of this amendment, the boundary will be rectified in that area.
This amendment proposes to define the seaside boundary of the City in a more satisfactory way.
High water mark and low water mark are two rather ambiguous terms. It is particularly difficult to establish what high water mark really is. There is no gauge in Dublin to indicate what high water mark is.
High water mark is the highest level of ordinary spring tides. So far as the law is concerned, it is a definite term.
For the purposes of civic administration and in regard to those matters in respect to which the city authorities are likely to have to take action, the terms used are sufficiently definite.
High-water mark is not quite so definite as low-water mark.
It is the low-water mark that we are providing for here.
