Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Jan 1948

Vol. 34 No. 23

Local Government (Sanitary Services) Bill, 1947—Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 4 put and agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No. 1:—

Before Section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—

5.—(1) A sanitary authority may, by by-laws made by them under this Act, provide that any person guilty of a contravention of such by-laws shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to such reasonable penalty not exceeding five pounds as the sanitary authority may think fit to prescribe.

(2) By-laws made under and for the purposes of this Act by a sanitary authority shall be under their common seal and any such by-law may be altered or repealed by a subsequent by-law made pursuant to the provisions of this Act.

(3) By-laws made under this Act by a sanitary authority shall not take effect until they have been submitted to the Minister and confirmed by him and the Minister is hereby empowered in his absolute discretion to confirm or refuse to confirm any such by-laws submitted to him in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(4) The Minister shall not confirm any by-law made under this Act by a local authority unless—

(a) notice of the intention to apply for confirmation of such by-law has been given one month at least before the making of such application in one or more local newspapers circulating within the district to which such by-law is intended to relate;

(b) for one month at least before such application a copy of the proposed by-law has been kept open for inspection at the office of the sanitary authority by interested persons at all reasonable hours.

Provided that no charge shall be made by the sanitary authority for the inspection under this sub-section of any proposed by-law kept open for inspection in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this sub-section;

(5) It shall be the duty of the sanitary authority to furnish to any ratepayer in their functional area who makes application therefor and pays the appropriate fee a copy of any proposed by-law or part thereof.

In this sub-section the expression "appropriate fee" means the sum of sixpence for every hundred words or part thereof contained in any copy of a proposed by-law.

(6) Every by-law made under or by authority of this Act by a sanitary authority shall be printed and placed on sale at such price not exceeding one shilling as may be fixed by the sanitary authority.

(7) A copy of any by-law made under authority of this Act by a sanitary authority, signed and certified by the secretary or other chief officer of such authority to be a true copy and to have been duly confirmed, shall be evidence until the contrary is proved in all legal proceedings of the due making, confirmation and authenticity of such by-laws without further or other proof.

On this Bill I want to raise a point which has been raised on a number of occasions in this House. It will be observed that this Bill is a consolidating measure and that parts of old statutes are being repealed. If members will look at pages 26 and 27 they will find a list of repealed enactments. The purpose of the Bill is to re-enact with amendment a number of these repealed measures relating to sanitation. For some mysterious reason, the Department of Local Government always fights shy of certain things, such as definitions, when repealing an Act. A considerable portion of the Public Health Act, 1878, is repealed by this measure, by the measure we were discussing earlier and by other Bills. That Act of 1878 is now a skeleton. There are a few sections left and the Department of Local Government insists that they must remain. Therefore, when anybody wants to look up the procedure, for instance, in prosecutions by a local authority, this Bill will be of no use to him; he will have to look for the Act of 1878 to find out all about it.

I draw attention to the provisions of the sections of the Act of 1878 which are retained. You will observe that Section 5 of this Bill provides that Sections 219 to 223 of the Act of 1878 shall apply in relation to by-laws made under this Act and that these sections provide that all by-laws shall be made in a particular fashion. Notice of the making of the by-laws shall be given and they shall be confirmed by the Local Government Board for Ireland— a body that has been dead for nearly 30 years. Then they must be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland. All this clap-trap and jargon is retained. You cannot get rid of it. We cannot get somebody to sit down for five minutes in a Government office to draw up a section in a Bill which gets rid of the jargon and gives us modern language. At great personal inconvenience, I have tried to supply the deficiency. I do not think I will establish my reputation as a draftsman in respect of the amendment which I have submitted but, at least, I have shown that the old provisions can be expressed in modern language. I have shown that all these sections—219 to 223—of the Act of 1878 can be put into one section. That is something which the draftsman might be asked to look at. I take it there is no hurry about this Bill?

Sir John Keane

Oh, yes.

Mr. Duffy

The election can go on without our having passed the Sanitary Services Bill. We have been waiting since 1878 to get this Bill and we still cannot draft one section to replace these sections of the Act of 1878. We can wait until after the election. Therefore, if the Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept the amendment which I have tabled, substituting a new section for these obsolete "Lord Lieutenant" sections of the Act of 1878, I am prepared to withdraw it if he undertakes that he will introduce a substituted amendment on Report Stage to achieve the same purpose.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Childers)

I would like to say, first of all, that I must sympathise with anyone in the House who desires to press forward consolidation legislation emanating from the Department of Local Government. We have done a fair amount in the past few years to effect partial or complete consolidation. But, in connection with this particular Bill, as I have already indicated to the House, this is not our final word on sanitary services legislation. We are anxious to pass the Bill in order to modernise practices in relation to insisting on good sanitation. A great part of the 1878 Act is, in fact, still in operation and the mere introduction of this new section to replace the by-laws sections of the 1878 Act would not in itself bring us far along the road to consolidation.

I must express pleasure that Senator Duffy is willing to help us over this, but I am afraid it is extremely difficult to try to write an old Act in modern form in fewer words without making a mistake, and the amendment, in the way the Senator has drafted it, is incomplete. In actual fact, it makes no provision for a penalty for a continuing offence on the breach of a by-law, and in the way he has drafted it an offender would have to pay only one fine for continuing to break the by-law in question. There is also no provision for a reduction in the amount of a penalty. Both of these points are covered by Section 220 of the Act of 1878. Section 220 of the Act of 1878 provides for the reduction of a penalty. It is obviously meant to deal with cases where it would be a hardship to impose the full penalty that is meted out to the offender. That particular section says that all by-laws imposing a penalty shall be so framed as to allow the recovery of any sum less than the full amount of the penalty.

I do not wish to make any particular point about the insufficiencies of this amendment. I would just like to say that a good deal of the Act is being left in. We have not attempted a complete consolidation in relation to the 1878 Act. I would ask the Senator not to press the amendment, particularly in view of the Minister's statement that this Bill is only an interim measure and of our desire to see it put into operation at the earliest possible moment. The House will recall that its passage in the Oireachtas was delayed owing to the separation of the Health Bill into two parts.

Mr. Douglas

I congratulate Senator Duffy on his effort. It cannot have been too bad an effort when the Parliamentary Secretary, a quite intelligent young man, was driven to find fault with it on the lines that he did. I am sure the Senator will not press his amendment now that he finds that the 1878 Act was more lenient than the present Bill. That may seem a horrible thing, but I think it would apply to nearly all the measure which come before us since the modern tendency would appear to be to have less and not more ways out. I think that if Senator Duffy had consulted me I could have told him immediately what the first part of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply would be. It is always the same. It is not original for the Parliamentary Secretary or for his Government. It was the reply invented by his predecessors when some of us were foolish enough to try our hand at this game and were told that some day there would be consolidation. We find in most Bills a reference to ancient British Acts. I do not expect to live long enough to see a Bill brought in here which will not contain a reference to some old British Act if it is found possible to apply it.

At the same time I want seriously to suggest—this may not be quite as important in the case of a Sanitary Services Bill as in the case of other Bills since this will be operated mainly by the members of local authorities who will be familiar with the provisions in a number of these old Acts—that it would be of enormous help to individuals and to business people who have not got special legal departments of their own if, instead of the present practice of referring to old Acts, a little work was done by Departments in the way of having the new position under a Bill restated. It would be a good thing in my opinion if the present practice of just referring to old Acts were changed on the lines that I have indicated. I am glad that Senator Duffy in his amendment has made an effort to do that, but still I feel that he will not press his amendment.

Mr. Duffy

My complaint is that it surely should not be a difficult matter to introduce a provision in a Bill regulating the manner in which a local authority may be empowered to make by-laws. That is all that would be needed to get rid of this particular group of sections in the Act of 1878. It is not good enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to come in here and talk about consolidation. I am not suggesting that everything in the Act of 1878 should be consolidated, but I do suggest that at least an effort should be made to get rid of clauses which must be referred to, or in regard to which there must be an equivalent in a new measure. The fact that you must provide in this Bill for the making of by-laws suggests at once that you should provide the method by which the by-laws will be made and will be enforced.

The comment made by the Parliamentary Secretary was just part of the old jargon which we get from the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary from time to time. He drew attention to the fact that my amendment makes no provision for a maximum penalty. You may provide that the maximum penalty for a violation of a by-law is to be 40/-, but while that is so the real penalty imposed by the court may be 1d. I suppose it is true to say that the position is that most Governments will not face up to the work involved in doing what I have indicated in the amendment. They simply slip in one thing after another in a Bill. Some day, I suppose, there will be some arrangement regarding the making of by-laws slipped into a Bill which nobody will see until it is too late, and then all of us will be in the soup.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 5 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 9, after sub-section (5) to insert the following new sub-section:—

(6) Section 255 of the Act of 1878 is hereby amended by the substitution of two pounds ten shillings per centum for five pounds per centum mentioned therein.

The purpose of the amendment is to modernise the harsh provisions in the Act of 1878. Section 255 of that Act provides that where a sanitary authority incurs expenses, for the repayment of which the owner of a premises is made liable under the Act or by an agreement with the sanitary authority, such expenses may be recovered, together with interest at a rate not exceeding five pounds per centum per annum. If any expenses are incurred by a local authority under this Bill which may be charged against a farmer or a householder, the Department of Local Government is making provision here that the local authority shall make 100 per cent. profit.

Sir John Keane

The banks do not get that.

Mr. Duffy

The banks have a lot to learn from these boys. The local authority will borrow the money at 2½ per cent. from the Local Loans Fund for, say, the making of a drain or a septic tank. The job may cost £100. The local authority is to be empowered to recover that sum from Pat Murphy, plus 5 per cent., although the local authority itself has got the money at 2½ per cent. Old man Shylock has left some beautiful successors. I am suggesting in my amendment that we ought to limit the charging power of the local authority to 2½ per cent.

Mr. Childers

If there is a Shylock in this section, he is thinking in terms of ounces and not pounds, because, so far as I can calculate, the cost of any work not exceeding 100 feet would be extremely small and this section in the 1878 Act, now applied in this connection, only applies to cases where owners do not carry out the work themselves, where it is carried out for them. It says: "not exceeding 5 per cent", which means that less than 5 per cent. can be charged, and the difference in the amount payable would be only one shilling. I am advised that it would cost some £20 or £30, on the basis of present-day costs, to do the average class of work involved in this Bill, and in view of the fact that it is not a minimum but a maximum, I do not think the House need be very worried by the section in its present form. Later on, if complaints should arise, the Minister might be given power to vary the interest rates from time to time, but, in the circumstances, it is just as well to leave the rate "not exceeding 5 per cent." I do not believe that a sanitary authority would be very anxious to mulct a whole lot of people in an extra rate of interest, if one could imagine a situation in which a number of people had their premises attached to a sewer and all of them failed to do the work and the local authority did the work for them. I do not believe public opinion would allow them to charge an unreasonable rate. I think a local authority would say: "We will not charge these people the full rate. We have the power to do so, but we will not do it." I think it is an unnecessary amendment.

Mr. Duffy

The Parliamentary Secretary might advert to the fact that the local authority for the purposes of this Bill is the county manager.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Sections 17 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 29.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 15, line 2, to delete the word "Order" and substitute the word "regulations".

This is the one section in which some important thing is being done by Order which need not be tabled instead of being done under a regulation which must be tabled. I want to draw a distinction between these two things. There is provision in the Bill that every regulation made under it shall be laid on the Table of both Houses and may be annualled within a period of 21 days; but, when we come to Section 29, we discover that the Minister may proceed by Order in the matter of the provisions relating to charges. Observe what he proposes to do. On the application of a sanitary authority he may modify the provisions of any enactment regulating the charges to be made by such sanitary authority for supplying water either within or without its district or to another sanitary authority and may make provision for the modification of any enactment consequential on or supplemental to such provisions. That is a very important function. Secondly, the Minister may modify the provisions of any award or agreement which determines the price to be charged by a sanitary authority for the supply of water either within or without its district or to another sanitary authority.

Here is an important function of the Minister, a function which is performed behind closed doors—the modification of an enactment, the modification of an award. The award might have been made by an arbitrator—it does not matter. The Minister has the right, without leave or licence, let or hindrance, to change the effect, the tenor and the scope of the award or enactment. I am not even objecting to that being done by the Minister, provided it is done in such a way that the instrument under which he operates is laid before both Houses, so that we can have a look at it, and, if we feel so disposed, put down a motion to have the instrument annualled. I suggest to members of the House who habitually shall I say, support the Government that they have a function in this matter to see that no Minister and no Government shall be given absolute powers to annul, modify or cancel a statute, or to set aside an agreement, irrespective of its consequences or application, without the obligation to make the instrument available for examination by either House of the Oireachtas.

If the people who support the Government in this Parliament are prepared to stand for that, they are in for a rough time in the near future, when there is a change of Government. They will find it very hard to get up in this House then and say publicly that they object to regulations of this kind. Will they not be charged with hypocrisy and dishonesty? Surely this is the time to do it, when they have a majority. Is this not the time to say that they are not going to have any invasion of the public right by Ministers or officials acting in the name of Ministers? I am giving them their chance. I am going to put this motion to the House.

Mr. O'Dea

I do not think that any people will be so foolish as ever to make the suggestion that the word "Order" should be changed to "regulations" in a matter of this kind. Regulations provide for a system to be carried out generally all over the country, but an Order is an entirely different matter. An Order is made ad hoc to a particular instance. In this case, it is to be made in reference to a particular sanitary authority, or if they supply water without their district, to the sanitary authority outside to whom the water is supplied, and, if necessary, the Minister, before he makes the Order, will have a public inquiry held. What interest would members of the Oireachtas take in an Order relating to a certain sanitary authority? Is it not the sanitary authority itself which will take the interest in the matter and is it not after negotiation with the sanitary authority that the Order would be made? The suggestion that it is done behind closed doors is perfectly absurd and ridiculous to anybody with any experience of public administration or the work of local authorities. We know well that all these Orders are made after negotiations extending over periods of weeks and sometimes months, and the amendment, I suggest, is absurd. The word “regulation” would be entirely wrong; the word “Order” is perfectly right.

Mr. Childers

I have little to add to what Senator O'Dea said. I do not think this is at all a good example on which to argue the case for laying Orders or regulations on the Table of the House. This section replaces one which has been enacted yearly in the Expiring Laws Act and it enables the Minister to allow an increase in the maximum fixed charges for water. The Act has been of a temporary character and has been passed every year. As Senator O'Dea says, the negotiations are prolonged, difficult and complicated, in connection with the making of increased charges. The Minister could hold a local inquiry whenever he so requires. If any sanitary authority should start making some private, concealed profit on water at the expense of the ratepayers, the matter can very easily become one for public inquiry. To ask the Dáil or Seanad to examine technical proposals of this kind would be quite fantastic in present circumstances. I do not think it comes within the class of Orders or anything else made in connection with local government legislation where there could be any argument at all.

I am not able to accept the amendment. It would cause confusion. There is a long series of precedents in connection with this legislation and there are very few enactments in connection with water rates. The only ones are those passed in the 90's which empowered the Dublin Corporation to sell water outside its area and all the rest are concerned with contractual agreements between ratepayers and sanitary authorities. It seems undesirable to trouble the Houses of the Oireachtas by placing such provisional Orders on the Table of the House.

Mr. Duffy

No one seems anxious to face up to what is involved in this proposal. If Senator O'Dea tries to wipe this section aside as of no importance, how do we know what may happen? We are getting away from the day when we had an elected county council, the administration now being in the hands of an officer who is very anxious to work in close harmony with the Department—it makes things easy —and the great bulk of the managers are not independent defenders of public interests but are anxious not to vex the Custom House. That is the attitude and the consultation goes on between the manager and the Minister in regard to something which both consider embarrassing. Then, under this section, the Minister proceeds to modify the provisions of any enactment regulating the charges to be made by the sanitary authority for supplying water. That may affect the position of a factory or an industry employing hundreds of people.

This can be used for political purposes, to destroy people you do not like or favour those on whom you desire to confer favours. I object to this kind of legislation. I object to any legislation going through which enables a Minister to modify, annul or amend an Act of Parliament without having to tell us or show the document by which it is done. If Senator O'Dea wants to rely on the technical point that the word "Order" is better than "regulation", I accept that, provided you insert a new sub-section to say that every Order will be tabled on both Houses of the Oireachtas and will be capable of annulment. That was done by the Minister for Local Government in respect of another matter which came up before Christmas, when he made provision for the annulment of an Order under the Local Elections Bill. Senator O'Dea must remember that. The point was raised here about the power of making Orders and he brought in a new sub-section providing that the Orders would be tabled and could be annulled.

I regard this as dangerous legislation which can be used to the disadvantage and detriment of individuals or of an industry, or to the advantage of individuals or firms. It might have the effect of destroying the livelihood of hundreds of people and I am not prepared to let it pass without protest.

Mr. Childers

If the House wishes to have an election campaign on the usual kind of talk, that the Minister might help his friends or there might be conspiracy between him and the county managers, we can have that kind of debate. However, it seems quite fantastic to introduce that even in the middle of an election in connection with this section of the Bill, which has been in operation for years and years. I have no recollection of any complaint having been made in connection with these water rate arrangements, nor can I recollect any complaints having been made in the course of discussions in the Dáil on the local government Estimates that there was insufficient opportunity to discuss any excessive profits being made by a local authority over some individual in connection with water rates. The whole objection is perfectly fantastic.

Mr. Duffy

It must be remembered that this has been an annual Act up to this, but it is becoming permanent legislation now. Surely there is some distinction.

Mr. O'Dea

When Senator Duffy admits I am right in saying the word "Order" is right, why should we put in "regulation"? He now suggests another amendment. If he knew as much as I do about water rates and water rents, he would know that under the 1878 Act a rent can be charged by agreement with people to whom the water is supplied. People may be getting water and paying nothing and others may have to pay for it. This is a very necessary clause to put into the Act.

Question put and declared lost.

Division challenged.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would the Senators challenging a division please stand?

Senators Bigger, Duffy, Hayden, Joseph Johnston and Smyth rose.

The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 19.

Tá

• Bigger, Joseph Warwick.
• Counihan, John J.
• Crosbie, James.
• Duffy, Luke J.
• Hayden, Thomas.
• Johnston, Joseph.
• Keane, Sir John.
• Kyle, Sam.
• McGee, James T.
• Smyth, Michael.
• Tunney, James.

Níl

• Clarkin, Andrew S.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Hearne, Michael.
• Honan, Thomas V.
• Johnston, Séamus.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, Peter T.
• Longford, Earl of.
• Lynch, Peter T.
• McEllin, John E.
• O Buachalla, Liam.
• O'Dea, Louis E.
• O'Donovan, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
• Quirke, William.
• Ruane, Thomas.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Hayden and Smyth; Níl: Senators Ó Buachalla and Kelly.

Amendment declared negatived. Sections 29 and 30 agreed to.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m., and resumed at 7.30 p.m.

SECTION 31.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 16, lines 37 and 44, to delete the words "a daily newspaper" and substitute the words "one or more daily newspapers".

This section provides that where certain action is taken by a local authority and an Order is made they shall publish a notice of the fact that the Order has been made. Sub-section (9) says that where a sanitary authority makes an Order under this section, they shall, within 14 days after the Order is made, cause to be published, in a daily newspaper circulating in their sanitary district, a copy of the Order and a statement of the right conferred by this section to apply for the annulment of the Order. Similar provision is made in sub-section (10). The purpose of my amendment is to secure that the advertisement provided for will be published in one or more daily newspapers circulating in the sanitary district to which the Order relates.

I would point out that over a period of years it has been the practice of a Minister, in respect of the Department concerned, to provide for the publication of notices of this kind in more than one newspaper. Where the Minister has not made provision in the Bill originally it has been the common practice to accept an amendment similar to the amendment which I am now moving. I do not think there is very much need to argue the point. This practice of providing for the publication of an advertisement in a single paper goes back a very long period. The modern practice has been to provide for publication in more than one paper. Let us take, for instance, a district such as Waterford. Usually in a country district and in small towns the ordinary citizen takes one newspaper daily and only one newspaper. Four daily newspapers are in circulation in Waterford and it seems to me that in order to make sure that there is really effective publication there should be a provision in the Bill requiring the sanitary authority to publish the notice in more than one newspaper. Normally, I think, the practice will tend to be that the council or authority will put their notices in all the daily newspapers circulating in the district. That is a desirable thing and I hope there will be no difficulty about accepting this amendment. Similar amendments have been accepted in relation to a number of Bills in this House over a long period.

Mr. Childers

In connection with this amendment, I am glad to tell the House and Senator Duffy that we do not consider sub-sections (9) and (10), as drafted, will preclude a sanitary authority from publishing the advertisement in more than one daily newspaper. The section was drafted in its present form because, whereas we had previously thought of providing for publication in a weekly newspaper, it was pointed out that organisations of various kinds might like to know the Minister's intention to make an Order restricting camping or providing special regulations for camping. Because of that we changed it to a daily newspaper. I am satisfied that a sanitary authority can, when this Act is passed, publish the Order in any number of papers it wishes. I can assure the House also that the Minister will—as I hope he will—when making Orders for the implementing of this Act, give a hint where necessary to any local authority if he feels there has been insufficient publicity.

Mr. Duffy

Would the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the Order made under Section 31 will be a reserved function? That might assist us to some extent. There are at least 21 members on a council; in the case of Cork the membership is up to 45. If it is a reserved function these members will know that the Order is being made because it will appear on the order paper for the council meeting and that order paper will be circulated to the members of the council. In that case there would naturally be some assurance that the intention of the Minister to make the Order would be generally known in the district. If it is a manager or an assistant manager who makes the Order the matter is entirely different. In County Cork, for instance, you have a number of seaside resorts like Youghal and Crosshaven all around the south coast. In a number of those districts it might be desirable to make an Order under Section 31. Now, we are dealing here with Orders relating to temporary dwellings and ground leased for camping. Assuming such an Order is made in respect of Youghal, it seems to me that the people chiefly affected would be people living in other parts of Cork or, perhaps, in County Limerick who go to Youghal and camp there during the season. The same is true to some extent of Dublin; but Dublin is on a different level because here the seaside resorts are adjacent to the city and the people who would be likely to lease camping grounds at Portmarnock, or elsewhere, would be chiefly citizens of Dublin with free access to daily papers. Therefore, they would be aware of what is being done. But the situation is different in other parts of the country. If it is a reserved function the danger is less great than if it is done by a county manager or an assistant county manager who may not take the same precautions to give publicity to his intentions as the members of a council would.

Mr. Childers

In reply to Senator Duffy, I am not absolutely certain whether it will be a reserved function but I can give the House an assurance that, if it is not, we will consider making it a reserved function of the local authority under the County Management Act of 1940. In the past we have made Orders creating new reserved functions. We can consider this one also. With that, and the assurance that an Order can be published in more than one newspaper, the Senator should be satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 31 agreed to.

Sections 32 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 35.

Question proposed: "That Section 35 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Duffy

On the Section, may I ask whether it is intended that the functions provided and prescribed here are reserved functions?

Mr. Childers

So far as the raising or a loan is concerned to carry out any of the objects underlying the section it will be a reserved function.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 36 to 41, inclusive, put and agreed to.

SECTION 42.

Question proposed: "That Section 42 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Duffy

On this section, there seems to me to be a provision here which is rather unusual. It is contained in paragraph (b) of sub-section (3). A penalty is provided in respect of a local authority. The sub-section says that if such sanitary authority fails or neglects to comply with paragraph (a) of this sub-section in regard to by-laws it shall be guilty of an offence under the sub-section and shall be liable, subject to conviction, to a fine not exceeding £5. This is the only instance I can call to mind of a provision in a statute prescribing a prosecution against a local authority and the imposition of a fine.

Mr. Childers

I think it is desirable that the sanitary authority should be under the same compulsion to carry out its duties in relation to swimming baths as the owners of private baths are. The sanitary authority should be under the same obligation. I do not see any harm in the sub-section at all.

Mr. Duffy

It is not the usual method of enforcing compliance in the case of a local authority. A fine of £5 does not seem to make sense. Who is to pay the fine? Is it to be levied on the local rates? Is it to be charged against an official? Is it to be charged against the sanitary authority?

Mr. Douglas

Is it a reserved function?

Mr. Duffy

We should at least be sure that the legislation will do what it is intended to do. This is the only case I know of where provision is made in an Act for a prosecution against a local authority and the infliction of a fine. A fine of £5 seems rather unimportant in the case of a local authority like the Dublin Corporation with an income of £2,000,000 a year. This is not in keeping with the common practice as far as I am aware.

Mr. Childers

I think there is a touch of novelty about the sub-section. So far as I can gather, if a fine were levied it would be levied off the funds of the sanitary authority unless some official could be found to be surcharged. As human life is involved, I do not see any harm in it. You might allow a little novelty to work its way. I do not think it will cause any trouble. The fine is a continuing one, "not exceeding £1 for each day on which the offence is continued".

Mr. Hearne

I welcome the innovation, especially if it is not going to be a reserved function, because if I find the manager doing something for which eventually the rates will have to pay in my area I certainly will appear before the auditor when the accounts are being audited and see that the manager is surcharged.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 43.

Question proposed: "That Section 43 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Duffy

I wonder whether this provision would entitle the Balbriggan Town Commissioners to continue their excellent scheme for providing public baths. There is a very old arrangement in Balbriggan by which the town commissioners maintain a public baths, for which they make charges, not merely for the people of the town but for people from other places around the coast. It is the only place in north County Dublin where there are public baths. I was wondering whether the intention is that a place like Balbriggan could still continue the present arrangement.

Mr. Childers

The answer is that they may, or they may, if they wish, transfer their baths to the sanitary authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 44 put and agreed to.

SECTION 45.

Question proposed: "That Section 45 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Duffy

I think there is some ambiguity about this section. It says: "Where a person requests a burial board under the Act to maintain in proper order, either in perpetuity or for a limited period, a grave in a burial ground provided by the board..." I was wondering whether the words "burial board" would include a local authority. For instance in north County Dublin the burial grounds are the property of the county council, not the property of a burial board. In south County Dublin, Dean's Grange Cemetery is the property of a burial board. I do not know whether the expression "burial board" would in fact include a local authority. If not, I think it would be desirable to enable a local authority, for a fee, to maintain a grave in perpetuity.

Mr. Childers

In answer to the Senator, Section 160 of the Act of 1878 constitutes the sanitary authority of each sanitary district as the burial board for such district, so that the answer to the Senator is "Yes".

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 46.

Question proposed: "That Section 46 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Douglas

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain the reason for sub-section (6) and its exact relationship to sub-section (1). Sub section (1) says the Minister may grant a licence and sub-section (6) says a person shall not be entitled solely by reason of a licence to carry out any exhumation or reinterment.

Mr. Childers

As I understand it, sub-section (6) is in order to prevent undesirable requests of this kind from persons who are no relations.

Mr. Douglas

Surely the Minister would not grant it in that case.

Mr. Childers

It is a kind of protective section in order to make sure that there will be no doubt about the matter.

Mr. O'Dea

Would it be to give the Minister the power that a district justice had to make an exhumation order? Possibly there might be dangers if there was a dispute between two parties.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 47.

Question proposed: "That Section 47 stand part of the Bill."

Professor Johnston

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would say whether this includes power to arrange that bodies should be made available for dissection in medical schools and whether it includes power to provide facilities for cremation.

Mr. Hearne

What exactly is meant by the provision: "The Minister may make regulations in relation to the disposal of human remains otherwise than by burial"?

Mr. Childers

In reply to Senator Johnston, the use of a body for dissection purposes is provided for in the Anatomy Act and does not come under this Bill at all. In relation to Section 47, I should say that there is no law at present by which the Minister could make regulations for dealing with any form of burial other than interment, and the purpose of the section is to give power to the Minister to deal with such a situation should it ever arise. Up to now, it never has arisen. Cremation has never been asked for by any section of the community or any other form of burial other than interment. This gives the Minister power to make regulations should such a situation ever arise.

Mr. Douglas

In view of that explanation, which was not what I expected, sub-section (4) seems rather strange.

Mr. Childers

This section is simply to provide for any other form of burial than interment should it become necessary, and the sub-sections are to deal with that situation. We very rarely had a request that there should be this form of burial. We did at one time have such a request and it placed us in an embarrassing position as we had no law to deal with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining sections, schedules and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Agreed to take the Fourth Stage now.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the Fifth Stage now.

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

Mr. Duffy

I want to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to a provision in the Bill which I do not quite understand, namely, the provisions of Section 55. That section provides that Section 251 of the Act of 1878 shall not apply in relation to a prosecution by the Minister or a sanitary authority of an offence under any section of this Bill. In the section referred to, Section 251 of the Act of 1878, the provision is that proceedings for the recovery of a penalty shall not, except where expressly provided, be had or taken by any person other than by the party aggrieved, or by the sanitary authority of the district in which the offence was committed, without the consent of the Attorney-General for Ireland, etc. It does not seem to me that this section fits in with the provisions here in Section 55 because proceedings, in the main, I think, would be taken by the sanitary authority. I do not know how they are restricted by the provisions of Section 251 of the Act of 1878 because I do not imagine that the sanitary authority is required now to apply for permission of the Attorney-General to take proceedings under the Public Health Act. I was wondering whether there was some other meaning to be attached to the section than appears on the face of it. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us exactly what is required by Section 251 of the Act of 1878 and to what extent it is necessary to make this provision in the present Bill.

Mr. Childers

Section 251 of the Act of 1878 requires the consent of the Attorney-General to any prosecution of an offence by any person other than the party aggrieved or the sanitary authority of the district in which the offence is committed. The section as drafted was intended to allow prosecutions by the Minister or in certain cases by the health authorities. This section was included in the Public Health Bill of 1945, and when the Bill was divided, it was thought advisable to transfer that section to the Sanitary Services Bill. It enables the Minister to prosecute a sanitary authority for not posting by-laws without having to consult the Attorney-General.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil without amendment.