Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Apr 1940

Vol. 24 No. 10

Fire Brigades Bill, 1939—Report and Final Stages.

Mr. Douglas

I move:—

In page 10, at the end of Section 13, to add the words:—

Every officer and servant of a sanitary authority to whom this section applies shall be deemed to have entered into a contract under which he undertakes that he will not withhold his services in furtherance of a dispute until a period of not less than two months shall have elapsed after notice in writing of such dispute shall have been served on the sanitary authority of which he is an officer or servant.

Upon receipt of a notice of a dispute the sanitary authority shall as soon as may be forward to the Minister a copy of such notice together with a statement setting out all the relevant facts with reference thereto and the Minister shall before the expiration of two months from the date of such notice advise the sanitary authority as to the steps which he considers should be taken in reference thereto.

I do not think there is any need to add anything to what I said on the Committee Stage. It was suggested by Senator Foran, I think, that the wording might be improved and, consequently, I have changed the wording. I gather that the Parliamentary Secretary's objection was solely that he thought the same principle or some similar principle, at any rate, should apply to practically all public services, and that he did not like it done in one case only. My answer to that is that we have no power here as far as others are concerned: we have before us a Fire Brigades Bill which is to make specific provision for fire brigades all over the country. As far as I can judge public opinion, it is that there is no case whatever for a lightning strike in the case of a fire brigade and that a period of delay is not only reasonable but one which should be accepted by all sections of the community, including labour, provided it was uniform and part of the conditions which the men accepted. For that reason, I would like to urge the House to make some provision, and if the Government, as I hope, do decide to deal with this and other similar matters, it would be very easy to repeal this particular section so as to make it uniform.

Mr. Foran

Would the Minister tell us what the attitude of the Government is towards this amendment, at this stage?

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward)

As the House is aware, a similar amendment was discussed on the Committee Stage, and, as Senator Douglas has reminded the House, I stated on that occasion that I considered that, if the principle were a desirable principle, it should apply equally to other essential public services, having in mind such services as water supply, public lighting, public health services, and food supplies. Notwithstanding what Senator Douglas has said, I still hold the view that if a far-reaching principle, perhaps a desirable principle, such as this, is to be incorporated in legislation it ought to have general application to the other equally important, or perhaps in some cases more important public services. I may say that the Government are examining the whole position in relation to the sudden dislocation of essential public services and other services, and if the Government decide as a matter of policy that legislation on the lines suggested by this amendment, or on other lines, is necessary or desirable, such legislation will be brought before the Oireachtas, but, pending a decision by the Government on that matter of policy, I cannot recommend the acceptance of the amendment before the House.

Personally, laying aside the question of principle involved, I cannot see that this amendment would bring us very far. The amendment would put a statutory obligation on the officers and servants of a sanitary authority to give two months' notice of their intention to withdraw their services if certain grievances were not redressed. The sanitary authority would be under a statutory obligation to forward particulars of the matters in dispute to the Minister, and the Minister would be under a statutory obligation to advise the sanitary authority what it had to do. I cannot see that that machinery is going to get us anywhere. Presumably, the Minister, in the discharge of his ministerial obligation, would advise a sanitary authority in such circumstances without necessarily having a specific statutory obligation put upon him in relation to the matter, but suppose that either the sanitary authority, or the officers or servants of that sanitary authority, refused to accept his advice how much farther on are we as a result of the Minister being under a statutory obligation to tender such advice? Anyhow, I cannot recommend acceptance of the amendment. As I say, the principle involved is being examined by the Government, and the result of that examination will probably be available in a reasonably short time.

Cathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Douglas

I think I should press this amendment. If the Parliamentary Secretary had been in a position to give an assurance that the Government were prepared to deal with it, I would, of course, have withdrawn the amendment, but he can only say that if the Government do make up their mind at some future time to deal with the matter, then it will be dealt with. I think this is a case, where a Bill comes before the Seanad, that the Seanad should have an opportunity of indicating its opinion. I would not press it if the Dáil still point-blank refused, but I still think that we as a revising Chamber should not withdraw everything that seems to us to be of some good simply because it does not meet with the approval of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary in charge.

Mr. E. Lynch

On a point of order, is Senator Douglas going to withdraw the amendment?

Cathaoirleach

At the moment he is answering the question I put to him.

Mr. Lynch

Is he pressing the amendment? We would like an opportunity to say something on it.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator is answering my question—"Is the amendment being pressed?" He is not concluding the debate.

Mr. Douglas

I think I should say no more in that case.

Mr. Lynch

This amendment certainly concerns the trade unions vitally. It is not clear to us why Senator Douglas is so concerned with this matter. He surely knows from his experience that the trade unions are responsible bodies and that, speaking for their members, they would not lightly withhold services in the particular service specially referred to here. Trade unions, speaking for their members, have always deplored hasty or any kind of hurried action in matters of this character and always would deplore the taking of hasty action where essential services of this kind are concerned. But it must be understood also that when we are dealing with trade unions and their members we are dealing with the vital liberties of the citizen. Every citizen is within the law entitled to exercise himself and his rights, and it would be a dangerous thing to put serious limitations on such rights. When we are dealing with trade unions we must take into consideration that we are dealing with a volume of public opinion which has been given a specialised status in law. That had to be done, and it would be well for Senator Douglas and those who think on similar lines that they would have regard for that specialised position which has been accorded to the trade unions in our code of law. In regard to the matter before the House in this amendment, trade unions have already in many capacities agreed to limitations of the character indicated. Those, however, are limitations which they have imposed on themselves in contract with their respective employers. In our opinion, having regard to that peculiar position occupied by the trade unions in modern society, it were well that they were left in that free position of dealing with their employers as they have dealt with them already, and not to impose statutory restrictions and limitations on them. They are quite capable of acting in a responsible manner, as they have acted already, and it were well that that position should not be statutorily disturbed.

Already we have quite a considerable volume of Government machinery for dealing with disputes of various characters and various types. That machinery might be developed. We have conciliation machinery under the Department of Industry and Commerce; we have the Arbitration Act of 1919; and in various ways of a voluntary character we have machinery which is quite capable of dealing with disputes of all kinds, characters and descriptions, and we would suggest that there might be a development of that machinery rather than that there should be a statutory obligation imposed on the individual, and outside of his trade union, which, in our opinion, is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter which the amendment proposes to deal with. We therefore think that this amendment should not be pressed, but that, rather, there should be a development of machinery already in existence.

Mr. M. Hayes

This is an amendment to a Fire Brigades Bill. It has reference only to the procedure which will take place before fire brigade men exercise their right to strike. The particular amendment here deals with only one class of public servant, and it does not withdraw from these public servants the right to strike. The amendment itself does not contemplate compulsory arbitration or any limitation upon the right of a trade union to which these particular people might belong, except one limitation, and that limitation is that a period of two months must elapse before a strike actually takes place. I think that, perhaps, Senator Lynch did not advert to that. The Parliamentary Secretary's objection to the amendment is that it raises a question of general principle, and therefore should not be inserted in this Bill until the Government has had an opportunity of examining the whole matter and of bringing in a comprehensive measure. Now, I want to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the House that the question of fire brigades is a special matter in itself, that it deserves attention at once, and that no principle dear to the hearts of trade unionists is being interfered with by this amendment. I myself would not support this amendment, or any other amendment, or any motion, which purported to take away from the workers the right to strike—a right which they have, and to which they are entitled, and which has given them very considerable improvements. Whether the losses involved can be avoided is another question, but I for one would not be in favour of removing that right, and I am supporting this amendment because it does not remove that right but does meet, in a particular way, by imposing a delay of two months, the very urgent and peculiar case of fire brigades. I want to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary also that, if the Government is examining the question generally and is going to bring in general legislation, and if, before that, any case involving a fire brigade should arise, this amendment would enable you to have a delay of two months, which might be very valuable. With regard to the objection that the matter is one that should not be dealt with in a particular Bill or for a particular class of workers, and that it should be dealt with generally, I think the Parliamentary Secretary's own experience of legislation will at once demolish that particular argument. No difficulty will arise, and if the Government are determined at any moment to bring in a general measure they would merely have to insert a sub-section somewhere repealing this particular section in the Fire Brigades Act of 1940, and that would be that.

Accordingly, I rather disagree with the Parliamentary Secretary, and with Senator Lynch. I think this is a matter which is urgent, that this particular amendment should be tried, and that it would reflect the opinion of the Seanad, and the opinion of a great many citizens, and, I suggest, Sir, the opinion of the majority of our fire brigade men: that is to say, that before action would be taken, a delay of two months should ensue. The amendment does not remove the right to strike, but it does fill a gap between our present situation, which has been proved to be a very difficult and objectionable one, and the time when the Parliamentary Secretary says the Government will introduce a comprehensive measure, with which measure, of course, we might not be at all in agreement. Governments at all times have a habit of moving very slowly, and I very much doubt if we will see this measure within two months. I, therefore, think that this amendment is very desirable, and is one which would fill in the period before the Government brings in the measure that has been referred to. I think the amendment is one which does not infringe upon the right to strike, or upon the principles on which trade unions are built and have been operated. I think the amendment should be adopted by the House.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I must say that I was not convinced by the remarks of either the Parliamentary Secretary or Senator Lynch. As Senator Michael Hayes said, we are dealing with a Bill that is concerned with fire brigades. The Parliamentary Secretary, of course, then referred to a wide general programme, analogous to this matter, being considered by the Government. It is quite easy for it to happen, however, that the Government—I hope it will not—might decide, in taking in the whole thing and every aspect of it, that they would not change the general principle. It might easily happen that, whilst in nine cases out of ten a proposal such as is here would not be the best thing to do, it would be the best thing for a fire brigade. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary said that since it is only a matter of fire brigades that is concerned here, there might be classes of public services, such as water supply and so on, in a different position, and that what might be right in one case might be wrong in another case. Well, I suggest that if the water supply of Dublin were cut off, some time would elapse before it would be a hardship. For instance, we had the major part of the civic services of Dublin cut off for a considerable time a short while ago, and we did not suffer so very much as a result—in fact, some of us began to wonder why we were paying so much for these services.

The only case analogous to that of a strike by a fire brigade, I think, would be that of a strike by the medical profession. You might have a man who was liable to die unless an operation were performed immediately, and if the doctors went on strike and refused to perform that operation, I think it would be criminal. The same might be said with regard to the fire brigades. Now, Senator Lynch talks about the trade unions as responsible bodies, and I have no doubt they are, but there are degrees of responsible bodies. We talk about a responsible Government. That is a body which is created, and is directed towards the good of the people. I am not so sure that the same description could be applied to trade unions.

The Senator then spoke of the basic rights of the human person. I entirely agree that one has a perfect right to refuse to give one's labour, but when one does give labour, one enters into a sort of contract. If the labourer can throw down his tools at any moment, and if, at the same time, he is protected because his employer, the local governing body, cannot tell him to leave his work and stop his pay immediately— there are terms in the contract as to what notice will be given him—you might say that it is an infringement of the basic rights of the public body that they have to continue a man at work for a week or for a month after they have decided to get rid of him. The Senator also spoke entirely in terms of trade unions. We have had such things as lightning strikes, and I think I am not being unjust when I say that I have known such things as unauthorised strikes. After all, trade unions only exist, and only have a right to exist, for the people who are members of them, and I maintain that those people, irrespective of what their trade union says, would have the right to strike and to refuse to work and, incidentally, to put up with whatever was coming to them. The union only acts as a protection there.

There have been unauthorised lightning strikes, that is to say, the men have not given notice and the trade union has not previously sanctioned the strike. The union then comes in, and if the employer says: "Those men are finished; we are not going to employ them again", I think that the probable line of the trade union would be not to say: "We are a responsible body", but: "We will now have a real authorised strike, unless these misguided men are taken back." The trade union cannot give any guarantee. It has no more right to insist upon a man working than anybody else, and if a man decided not to work, a trade union has no power, statutory or otherwise, to force him to work. All it can do is to withhold its support.

Mr. Lynch

A very serious sanction.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I quite agree, and a much more serious sanction than that proposed in the Bill and, if you like, a much more serious infringement of basic human rights.

Mr. Lynch

A member subscribes to that when he subscribes to the union.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Certainly, and I presume that if this amendment were accepted, a man taking employment as a member of a fire brigade, knowing that he was entering into a contract whereby he would not withdraw his labour without giving two months' notice beforehand so that the matter could be considered, in the same way as his subscription to the trade union was an act of his own free will, and accepting these conditions which are not onerous or unjust, would be entering into a contract and accepting that limitation. Is that limitation against his own personal rights or is it in the interest of the general public good? To my mind, it is eminently in the interest of the general public good, because a man employed in a fire brigade has, by his lack of action, his refusal to operate at a given moment, the power to inflict immediately serious injury on the general community leading to loss of life or loss of property. On the other hand, as I understand the proposal in the amendment, it is that a man being put in the position of having that awful power by negative action of creating serious injury to people will enter into a contract to give two months' notice.

Mr. Lynch

The Senator is forgetting my alternatives.

Mr. Fitzgerald

To what is the Senator referring?

Mr. Lynch

The latter portion of my remarks.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I cannot remember any alternative that vitiates what I am saying. I cannot see that it is any hardship that a man must give this two months' notice which is in the terms of his contract. On the other hand, even with the trade union, I think those men would be in a position—and I do not think that this proposal would take it away—in which they could say that they were not going to act. This does not apply any legal penal sanction. The fact that the trade union accepted these terms in the contract would merely mean that if a man acted in that arbitrary, unjust and most imprudent way, the trade union would recognise that he had brought whatever was coming to him on his own head and would not use their machinery to force a local body to take him back when he had proved himself incapable of keeping to the terms of his contract. I would not support this proposal if I thought it gave the Government, a local body, or anybody else, the power to insist that a man should give what is intimately his own, his labour, whether he wanted to or not, but a man is acting most intimately as himself when he enters into a contract containing provisions, strictly in accord with justice and the public good, that he will give this notice, and when he accepts a position whereby the public will be dependent on him for the preservation of life and property. I cannot see that the Senator has made a case.

Mr. Lynch

The Senator is quite clear and definite in regard to the first portion of my remarks, but why he ignores the alternatives or suggestions which I put forward, I do not know.

Mr. MacDermot

From what the Parliamentary Secretary said I am not clear as to whether he is in a position to give a definite pledge that the Government are introducing legislation in the early future to deal with industrial disputes. If he is prepared to say that definitely, and if he also says that the Government are in sympathy with the principle of this amendment, I should be inclined to accede to his request and to support him in the suggestion that the matter be left over until the general measure is brought in, but if he is not able to give us either of those assurances, I shall, on the contrary, feel inclined to support Senator Douglas's amendment.

Dr. Ward

I hope I have not conveyed the impression to the House that the Government would, without doubt, introduce legislation along the lines of this amendment dealing with this particular service and other public services. I stated quite definitely that the Government were examining this position and that if they decided on the principle, and on extending that principle to the other essential public services, and possibly other services, the necessary legislation would be placed before the Oireachtas. I want to be quite clear that I am not giving any undertaking whatever that the Government will introduce such legislation.

Mr. MacDermot

Or do anything at all about industrial disputes?

Dr. Ward

They will examine the question; they will determine their policy on it; and if they decide that legislation should be introduced, they will introduce such legislation, but the responsibility of taking that decision rests with the Government.

Mr. Foran

Lest there be any misunderstanding regarding the attitude of the trade union and labour movement to the amendment, I want to say that the essence of the amendment is embodied in agreements between large employers and large trade unions in the country. It is an undertaking entered into by the trade unions, but what is likely to create opposition, hostility and misrepresentation throughout the country is the fact that this is to be imposed by the Government on what is regarded as the working class. That is the only difference between us. Senator Lynch mentioned the machinery which the Government have at their disposal for the development and enlargement of the agreements which I have mentioned. If the conciliation machinery which the Government have available were exploited to a much greater extent, I believe there would be no need for the embodying in legislation of an amendment of this character.

It is calculated to do the greatest possible amount of harm. It will not do away with lightning strikes in essential services, and a greater effort on the part of the Government to make its own conciliation machinery more acceptable would, in our opinion, be the proper line to take. I think Senator Lynch dealt with that matter very extensively. Already some of the most powerful trade unions, together with some of the largest employers in the country, have agreements which provide for two months' notice at least before there is any stoppage of work. Of course, that does not interfere with what Senator Fitzgerald deplores, and what we all deplore, that is, the right of the individual to have a lightning strike if he feels that it is going to serve his purpose. It cannot be denied to him.

Mr. MacDermot

It is denied to him in many countries.

Mr. Foran

But you see a war going on about that. We do not want to get into it, certainly not here. The majority of the people of this country have no sympathy with it.

Mr. MacDermot

Even in Australia and New Zealand it is denied to him.

Mr. Foran

No, it is not. Compulsory arbitration has failed and failed lamentably in Australia and it will fail here. The other method of putting it into operation will never be tried here. At any rate, what are essential services? Once you start getting into that question there is no end to it. I agree that fire brigades should be removed from the possibility of lightning strikes. That can be provided for if the members of the fire brigades are members of trade unions. The trade unions will not encourage the members of a fire brigade to cease work on short notice. That is generally conceded by the trade unions. It would be deplorable to have in the fire brigade men who would withhold their services on the occasion of a conflagration or in case of a big accident. Nobody would stand behind action of that kind. We believe that the Minister for Local Government could impose on local authorities the responsibility for seeing that some arrangement such as is visualised in this amendment is embodied in the regulations governing the employment of members of a fire brigade without having any specific legislation for it. That is briefly our attitude in this matter.

Mr. Douglas

There have been in the main two types of criticism on this amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary thinks that it does not go very far, and Senator Lynch and Senator Foran think that it goes too far. That kind of position is almost inevitable if you try to put forward what seems to be a middle course. The only criticism I have received from outside the House, since a similar amendment was put down before, was that it was ridiculous because it did not provide that the fire brigade could not go on strike in any circumstances whatever. I stated on the last amendment that I was opposed to the provision of any such clause in this or any other Bill, at any rate until every other conceivable method had been tried of obtaining a proper public service. I should like, first of all, to deal with the point raised by Senator Lynch and Senator Foran. I do not want to go into the general question of trade unions, because that will probably arise on another motion of a more general character which will come up for discussion at next meeting. As I have already expressed my views on that motion, and as I shall have another opportunity of speaking on it later, I shall not take up the time of the House in dealing with that question now.

I would point out that this is a Bill which is making statutory provisions for fire brigades. Section 13 of the Bill deals with the conditions under which members of a fire brigade are to be appointed. On the Committee Stage I brought in an amendment the effect of which was to provide that sanitary authorities should, in making appointments, insist on certain conditions. The conditions were, in effect, the same conditions as you have in this amendment. Senator Foran thought that the wording was not as clear as he would like. As a result, I had a talk with a prominent member of the Labour Party—I am not referring to anybody in this House—and it was on the suggestion of that prominent member of the Labour Party that I changed the wording to provide that every servant should be deemed to have entered into a contract. That was not my wording and was not my way of putting it. I am, therefore, very much interested to see that Senator Lynch has cast doubt upon it, because, as I say, that was the wording I adopted on the suggestion of a prominent member of his Party.

Mr. Lynch

I merely inquired what legal significance would be attached to the words: "shall be deemed".

Mr. Douglas

At the moment, I am simply stating where I got the idea from. I am not at all in favour of unanimity inside any Party, and I am not criticising Senator Lynch for a moment. I hate to see it. I never calculated——

Mr. Lynch

I merely asked, for the information of the House, what legal significance would be taken from the wording: "shall be deemed". I have seen that phrase used in cases where legislation was not under consideration, but what legal significance has it in this particular amendment? It has given me considerable thought, and the Senator would perhaps relieve my anxiety by explaining what it means.

Mr. Douglas

I have already told the Senator where it came from, and I shall now tell him what I think it means. Sometimes it is a mistake to be over anxious to try to reach a measure of agreement, because you find yourself obliged to adopt a form of wording which is not necessarily your own. It is not at all an uncommon thing to provide that a person shall be deemed to have certain obligations.

In the original provision I endeavoured to provide that in appointing a member of the fire brigade the sanitary authority should insist, as a condition of his contract, that he would not withhold service without notice and that the notice should not be of any shorter period than two months. It is a perfectly common and reasonable thing to provide for two or three months notice in the case of contracts. These contracts are made between individual workers and employers and sometimes they are made collectively between groups of employers and trade unions.

In this case we are dealing with what is a public authority, and we are providing that this public authority shall be deemed to have made that contract with any person it employs. That is a statutory provision, and the objection of Senator Lynch to it is, to me, extremely interesting. It has been the practice of Labour members again and again in this House to seek to provide in certain enactments that certain authorities shall pay trade union wages. That is going outside the ordinary bargain that a trade union, in the ordinary way, would make with any particular public body. Other provisions are made—and I think quite properly made—when you are dealing with public bodies. It has not been a general practice, and I agree with my Labour friends in hoping that it will not be the practice in this country, for the State to intervene in an ordinary private enterprise and to impose over and above everybody concerned certain specific conditions, and to provide that if these conditions are broken those guilty of the breach shall go into an internment camp. I am not in favour of anything so drastic as that, as I think my Labour friends know, but where you are dealing with public bodies, it is perfectly reasonable to make provisions such as are outlined here.

On the other side, the Parliamentary Secretary says that it does not get us very far. I have more sympathy with that point of view than with the point of view of Senator Lynch. It may be said that the notice should not be less than three months, but I am not dealing with that at the moment. I cannot see that there can be any points of view about this amendment except three. One is that you remain as you are at present, that is, that the individual member of the fire brigade can, whether his union likes it or not, go on strike without notice.

Another is, whether the man likes it or not, his union can themselves order him to go on a lightning strike. The third alternative is that you place such workers in a class by themselves and remove all the provisions of the Trades Union Acts and virtually make it impossible for them to strike at all, but there is a half-way house. The half-way house I suggest is a period of two months—I would not object to three— but the point I am making is that I cannot see how you are going to get any further towards getting a longer time except by going the whole way. I hope it will never be necessary to go the whole way, but I think there is a very strong public opinion that there are certain services in which, in so far as they are public services, the lightning strike is not a proper method to adopt to deal with grievances. If they are public services, it is quite reasonable to make statutory provision for them.

I am asking the House to divide on this amendment because, as Senator MacDermot has said, we have no undertaking that there will be an alternative put forward on behalf of the Government. If there is such an alternative, there is no difficulty in repealing this provision, and in view of what is happening in this country I am convinced we would be neglecting our duty if we did not take steps to deal with the matter when a Bill regarding fire brigades is before the House.

Amendment put.

The Seanad Divided: Ta, 11; Níl, 23.

Tá

• Butler, John.
• Counihan, John J.
• Douglas, James G.
• Doyle, Patrick.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Johnston, Joseph.
• Keane, Sir John.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• Madden, David J.
• Rowlette, Robert J.

Níl

• Byrne, Christopher M.
• Campbell, Seán P.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Cummins, William.
• Foran, Thomas.
• Goulding, Seán.
• Hawkins, Frederick.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Honan, Thomas V.
• Johnston, James.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Lynch, Eamonn.
• Lynch, Peter T.
• MacCabe, Dominick.
• McEllin, Seán.
• Magennis, William.
• O'Callaghan, William.
• O'Dwyer, Martin.
• O'Neill, Laurence.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Quirke, William.
• Ruane, Thomas.
• Stafford, Matthew.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Douglas and Hayes; Níl: Senators Goulding and Hawkins.

Amendment declared lost.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

Mr. M. Hayes

Before the motion is taken, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has yet made any calculation as to the eventual cost of this measure should all the appropriate authorities take action under it? We had some discussion on the matter before, and he was unable to give an idea of the cost. A certain obligation is being imposed on local bodies, and he must know, or the Department must know, all about the matter and the number of bodies likely to be affected, and he should be able to give some estimate as to the cost.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

That can be taken on the Fifth Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the Fifth Stage now.

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

Dr. Ward

Such investigations as I have made as to the probable expenditure under the Bill when it becomes an Act may not completely satisfy Senator Hayes. It was stated before, when we were discussing this particular problem, that it is utterly impossible to estimate accurately in advance—or to estimate, even with approximate accuracy —the expenditure under such a Bill as this. The expenditure will be governed, firstly, by such important factors as the extent to which fire fighting services have already been provided by a sanitary authority, and secondly, by the extent to which a sanitary authority is prepared to establish and maintain a fire fighting service, and the amount of money they are prepared to spend on it. It is true that we are aware of the fire fighting services which have been established already, but we cannot anticipate with any degree of accuracy how far sanitary authorities will act up to their responsibilities in the matter of operating this Bill.

In so far as we have information in relation to areas where fire fighting services are maintained, the figures which I have before me may perhaps, satisfy Senator Hayes and ease his mind—if not put it completely at ease. In Cork County Borough, the cost of the fire fighting services maintained there is about 2½d. in the £; in South Cork, in the rural part, the cost is 1/20th of a penny in the £; in Dublin City it is 5¼d.; in Dun Laoghaire it is somewhat more than in Dublin, but under the new conditions a contribution will be obtained from the rural area. The cost in Dun Laoghaire is 7½d. in the £ at the present time. In South Dublin the contribution to Dun Laoghaire would amount to about 2d. in the £. Taking a fairly large urban area, such as Dundalk, the cost is about 3d. in the £. Taking into consideration the areas in which an adequate fire fighting service is already established and being maintained, I think it would be safe to assume that the average cost would be in the neighbourhood of 3d. in the £, and that the total would amount to about £150,000.

Mr. Hayes

I am thankful to the Parliamentary Secretary, but perhaps I might enlighten him a little bit on the question of parliamentary government. He did not answer the question for the purpose of satisfying my mind. He has a duty to the public, and so have we all. I asked the question for the purpose of informing the House— and, through the House, the public— of what the cost would be. It took a great deal of trouble to bring him to the point of making the estimate; he gives it rather grudgingly and seems to be rather vexed that there should be anybody in the Seanad with the temerity to say: "Here you have a Bill; do you know what it is going to cost?" It is not for a personal reason that I want to know, though I am paying rates; it is merely in the fulfilment of a public duty. The conclusion he comes to is that the cost would be about 3d. in the £ upon the rates for this particular service, and I am glad he did, even reluctantly and even at the last moment, give us some information.

Dr. Ward

The Senator is not being very nice about it, in spite of all the trouble I took.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered: That the Bill, as amended, be returned to the Dáil.