Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1960

Vol. 53 No. 3

Local Government (No. 2) Bill, 1960: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill is almost wholly procedural. In its main provisions, it proposes to improve and simplify procedures relating to the raising of money for local capital projects and to the compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities for the purposes of their powers and duties.

In Part I of the Bill, the definition of "appropriate Minister" will have the effect that control of borrowing, lending or compulsory land acquisition will be exercised by the Minister charged with the supervision of the functions of the local authority to which the particular borrowing, lending or acquisition relates, or, in the case of a project involving more than one Minister, the Minister for Local Government, if he is concerned, and in other cases the Minister having the major interest in the proposal.

Part II represents a considerable measure of consolidation combined with amendment of the existing law. It will substitute a few simple statutory provisions relating to borrowing and lending for the numerous and complex enactments, spread over more than sixty statutes, dealing with the control of these functions. Among the proposals is one to remove the remaining statutory limitations on borrowing, in the realisation that the effective control of local indebtedness must be exercised by Ministers in the light of national economic and social policies, rather than by rigid statutory limits which may have become out-of-date. Statutory limits have never proved either effective or useful, and have already been discarded for a wide range of services.

The Bill provides for the making by the Minister for Local Government of general regulations relating to borrowing. It also introduces some new provisions which should prove of value. Among these may be mentioned the power to de-control certain borrowings by Ministerial directions, that is, to exempt them from the need for specific Ministerial sanction. Local authorities are also being empowered to borrow on behalf of the other local authorities. Contributions towards loan charges, which is the form taken by Exchequer assistance to local authority housing and some other services, may moreover, under the Bill, be paid direct by the Department concerned to the lenders. Since the lenders are in the majority of cases the Commissioners of Public Works, this provision should enable a greatly simplified procedure to be introduced in relation to the subsidising of loan repayments.

I should emphasise that this Part of the Bill does not affect the purposes for which local authorities may borrow money. A decision to raise a particular loan is taken in the light of local needs whether they be housing, health, sanitary services, bridges or any other local authority service. The Bill merely provides a better mechanism for the implementation of decisions to borrow already taken on the merits of the projects in question.

Part III of the Bill is concerned mainly with the procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land. It also seeks to clarify the powers of local authorities to provide office accommodation for their staffs.

The principal object of this Part is to substitute what is known as compulsory purchase order procedure for provisional orders in the acquisition of land for certain services. At present, land may be acquired by compulsory purchase order for housing purposes, health services, public assistance and mental hospitals. These powers of compulsory acquisition extend to the provision of office accommodation for local staffs engaged on these services. Land may also be acquired compulsorily for sanitary services, roads, bridges, the fire service and certain other purposes, including the provision of offices and places of meeting for the local authorities concerned with these services, but in these cases the procedure to be employed is known as the provisional order procedure. What the Bill proposes to do is to extend compulsory purchase order procedure to all those services for which land may now be acquired compusorily by way of provisional orders. The principle of compulsory acquisition of land is not being extended to any new services or purposes. Section 10 of the Bill merely provides that where a compulsory power of acquisition of land already exists it may be exercised by means of a compulsory purchase order.

Some local authorities, and in particular the Dublin Corporation, have been faced with the problem of what to do when they wish to acquire land compulsorily for two or more purposes, where the compulsory acquisition procedure for one of those purposes is by provisional order and for the other of those purposes by compulsory purchase order. In such cases the Bill provides that compulsory purchase procedure should apply.

Apart from the legal difficulty in regard to acquisition for multiple purposes involving two different procedures, it is generally desirable that in matters of administrative procedure, uniformity and simplicity should replace diversity and complexity. There are no good reasons why two procedures should exist side by side for purposes which are of equal public importance. Land required for a dispensary may be acquired by compulsory purchase order, while land for a reservoir or fire station or a bridge must be acquired by provisional order. Land for offices for staff engaged on health services may be acquired by compulsory purchase order, while a site for offices for, say, engineers engaged on road works, would have to be acquired by provisional order in default of agreement.

In view of the considerations favouring the adoption of a single procedure, the Bill proposes that compulsory purchase order procedure should apply generally.

Provisional order procedure is more cumbersome, and involves everybody concerned in more procedural steps than are really necessary for the proper consideration and protection of all the interests involved.

It involves public advertisement of the proposal, service of notice, in a succeeding month on all affected interests, a petition to the Minister, a public inquiry by the Minister, unless all served with notice have signified assent to the local authority's proposal, public notice by the Minister before making the provisional order, followed by advertisement of that order by the local authority, with five weeks allowed for appeals, either to the Minister or the Circuit Court. Finally the Minister must give further public notice before proceeding to confirm the provisional order.

Compulsory purchase order procedure involves the making of a compulsory purchase order by the local authority concerned, advertisement and invitation of objections, public local inquiry, ordered by the Minister, to consider any valid objections received, and rejection or confirmation of the order by the Minister after considering the report of the inquiry. Any person aggrieved by the confirmation of an order may appeal to the High Court on a point of law.

The substitution of compulsory purchase orders for provisional orders will not therefore weigh the scales against property owners and in favour of local authorities. It will merely enable the issues to be sorted out, dealt with and decided as speedily as may be consistent with equitable treatment for all concerned.

The remaining provisions of the Bill are of a minor nature. Section 11 of the Bill will clarify the position in relation to land acquisition for office purposes. Section 12 confers certain ancillary powers where one local authority performs functions on behalf of another. Section 13 confers a power of entry on land to determine its suitability for a particular purpose of the local authority, prior to initiating arrangements for acquisition. It contains due safeguards for the owners, including compensation for any damage that may be caused. Section 14 will enable county councils to increase their contributions towards the expenses of the County Councils General Council, if they wish to do so.

Senators will have seen, from what I have stated, that the Bill is almost wholly procedural, or technical; it is directed towards the machinery, rather than the substance of local government. I have no doubt that, with the help of the Bill, this machinery will function with greater smoothness, and that the Bill will facilitate local authorities in the discharge of their business. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

When I read this Bill before coming here I confess that I was perturbed by some of the provisions in Part III, the "miscellaneous" section. It looked to me as if the safeguards against unjustly penalising landowners were not strong enough. Now the Minister has assured us, and I welcome his assurance, that these safeguards are not being weakened. There is a risk when we are giving extra powers to the county councils that these powers may sometimes be abused, just as our own parliamentary powers occasionally may be abused. I have reason to say that in the light of two recent incidents in which these powers have been abused.

For example, we have seen in the newspapers and elsewhere references to the recent building on the main lake of Killarney. The local authority gave permission to people from another country to put these large and spectacular buildings right on the lake shore. There was considerable local indignation—justifiable, to my mind, for I inspected the site—and yet nothing could be done. The shore of the lake had been protected as a beauty spot for many years. Then suddenly the local residents' view there was handed over not to Irish people but to people from another country. The result is that the scenic value of these lakes has been impaired. That is one example of the wrong use of powers of granting or acquiring land.

There is another example which ought to be referred to, in Westport. An estate there was developed for local housing in such a way as very much to damage the amenities of that estate. Although the owner of the estate protested and did his best, he was overruled. I know that there are clashes of interest here, and naturally in this country the instinct is to support the small holder or the poorer man against the landlord or property owner. That is a perfectly natural historic tendency, but we are beginning to realise that if we allow powers of this kind to damage places of great beauty which have been preserved in a civilised way for many hundreds of years, we are ultimately damaging the nation. If you destroy the appearance of a fine estate, it can never be restored. Our tourist board wants to send tourists from other countries to see these places, so the country is going to lose if these local powers have been abused.

It seems to me also that if we give too great powers to the county councils and other local authorities, occasionally there is a risk, and a greater risk than in a parliament, of vindictive action. However, the Minister has assured us that the safeguards against rash or unjust acquisitions have not been weakened. But I should like further assurance. As one reads the Bill, it almost looks as if, should a local group decide that such and such a person deserves to be punished, they can say: "We want your house for a building site." It could happen through ill feeling in a country town if a clique got control of the county council. I know there are many county councillors here and they do not like what I am saying, but we have to face this risk. Such a thing can be done in a small area when it cannot be done in the national Parliament. People could decide to use their powers to punish a certain individual in the district, and one of the best ways would be to move him out of the house he has been living in for perhaps two or three generations.

I should like an assurance as to whether the Minister ultimately or the High Court can protect that person in circumstances of that kind. I remember Senator McGuire some years ago saying a very significant thing in this House—he has said many significant things—that we were giving such strong powers in this country by Act of Parliament, such strong powers of compulsory acquisition, that if a hostile communistic government were to take over, they would not have any need to bring in a further single Act of Parliament, since all the powers are there, if misused. We want an assurance on this Bill that such powers as we are giving will be ultimately under the control of the Minister and of the Oireachtas, because we can see in the papers from time to time that in local government things can be done which could not be done in the Oireachtas.

This is a Committee rather than a Second Reading Bill. It is a Bill which needs much examination. I am glad that Senator Stanford has looked at the problem of protecting the people from powers that may be abused for misused, whether they be used by bureaucrats or by malicious or uninformed county councillors. I should be much more inclined to believe that county councillors were uninformed rather than malicious. They would be guided in large measure by their managers and leading officials. I sometimes wonder are their managers and leading officials as wise, in the wide context of the word, as they ought to be. Do they see where they are going in regard to the building up of debt? That is one of the matters we can deal with by amendment on Committee Stage.

The Minister is giving far wider powers to local authorities with regard to borrowing for purposes for which it was not so easy to borrow in the past. In fact, the building of county council offices and other amenities would look very well, but there is undoubtedly in public affairs a certain amount of what is known on the other side of the water as "log rolling." It might be a great advantage to a town to have large county council offices built in that it would give an amount of short-term employment but the expenditure will go on the rates.

I should also like to suggest that when these inquiries are being held, they should be conducted by someone trained in the law, such as a district justice, an acting circuit court judge, or some person of that rank. With regard to these inquiries, I feel that the men who are trained as officials in the Department of Local Government are meeting the managers and are all speaking the same language. One gets the impression that dog does not eat dog. The same thing applies to the selection boards. Generally, the farmers have to pay the men who are appointed, but it would be rank heresy to suggest the Minister should put a few farmers on those boards, most of which are stacked with officials. It is the common view that they are overburdened by the official view. If some one with some legal experience were on these boards, some fresh air might be let in, and a new approach might be found, because they would have a more liberal and less restricted view of what was required.

Lastly, I wish to say that there is too much legislation by reference in this Bill as there is in most of the Bills which come before us. Some years ago, a committee was set up of which I was a member. I think Senator Fitzsimons and one or two other members of this House sat on that committee. We met every other week, I think, for about 12 months and tried to codify the law. A great deal of codification is necessary with regard to the borrowing powers of the county councils. I suggest to the Minister—he cannot do it in this Bill —that he should have the position examined with a view to setting up a committee of both Houses to deal with the question of bringing some order into methods of borrowing and other local government affairs.

I do not propose to say anything further on this measure at the moment. It may be necessary to put down some amendments on Committee Stage, if not to amend the Bill, at least to seek further information on specific points from the Minister.

This Bill appears to be necessary in some respects and, as the Minister says, it will probably do a good deal of streamlining. I am not at all too sure that streamlining as an objective is altogether desirable, particularly when it relates to the rights of individual citizens and to property owners. Senator Stanford derived some comfort from the assurance given by the Minister that the rights of property owners will be protected. I must confess that I do not derive any such comfort from any assurance given by any Minister——

Hear, hear!

——because this Bill will be passed into law and the Minister will know very little about it afterwards. If the matter were for determination by him, his assurance might be of some value or if it were his business from day to day to deal with the matters dealt with in the Bill, but once the Minister has given a general direction, I am afraid that is the end of the assurance.

The Minister did say there were legal safeguards. He made that clear. It was not his opinion but it was the law.

I shall come to the legal safeguards and when we examine them, I think we shall find they are very trifling indeed. I notice again one of the protections that is incorporated in every piece of legislation that comes before the House—the usual one dealing with the laying of regulations before each House of the Oireachtas. Frankly, it sometimes amazes me that this House, which has so little power in some respects, does not seize upon its right to examine and criticise regulations which are laid before it and that it does not have a committee or a sub-committee of the House as a subsidiary Parliament, to deal with subsidiary legislation. The sooner Seanad Éireann realises that when it passes a law containing provisions it has a right to review and indeed to annul regulations, and it makes adequate provision for the exercise of that right, the better.

The borrowing authority of the local authorities will be subject to regulations to be made by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance and when regulations are laid before either House of the Oireachtas, we all lay our hands on our hearts and say that the control of Parliament is being maintained. In fact the control of Parliament does not exist, because, I regret to say, so far as this House is concerned, we are not sufficiently alert to examine these regulations to see whether in fact they should be annulled or modified in some way. I hope that, at some future date, before this House ceases to be a House of the Oireachtas, that is, before the next general election, we will take some steps to see that these regulations are critically examined by some committee analogous to the Statutory Instruments Committee.

The Minister was not very specific about the extension of the compulsory powers of acquisition and as to what the object in mind was. The powers of acquiring land for the building of public offices and the provision of halls by local authorities are clear, but I am not clear as to when the special circumstances contained in subsection (1) of Section 10 will be used. In far too many towns and villages, there are inadequate playground facilities for the children, and if the local authorities were to use those powers for the provisions of playgrounds, that would be very desirable and I would go a great distance in giving the necessary powers to provide such facilities.

I am not at all sure about the legal safeguards contained in the Bill with regard to a variety of matters, one of which is the extinguishing of public rights of way merely by a decision of the local authority confirmed by order, presumably made by the Minister. A right of way generally means a short cut, and in the case of old or infirm people, it might be a great hardship if it were taken away. Is there any provision in mind whereby some other short cut will be provided by the local authority on the extinguishing of a right of way?

On occasion it may be inconvenient for a local authority to have a right of way through a property it requires. That inconvenience had to be borne by private builders when acquiring property from time to time. They had either to maintain the public right of way or provide some substitute which eventually became acceptable to the people. I wonder has the Minister in mind that the local authorities will maintain existing public rights of way as far as that can be done? The Minister has not given any indication as to what will happen in that regard. I grant the matter is one to be dealt with on Committee Stage, but we may avoid unnecessary amendments if we are given some indication by the Minister as to what the policy will be.

Section 13 provides power for local authorities to inspect lands and as a piece of drafting, it strikes me as being odd that the section which not alone provides power to inspect land but also provides very necessary safeguards for the very necessary sections dealing with compensation for damage done in the course of an inspection and compensation to the owners of property for acquisition, should be included under the marginal note:

"Power of local authority to inspect land."

It would seem to me that in the ordinary course of events, one would expect to find this compensation for damage or for compulsory acquisition in a separate section.

It may be indicative of the outlook on this matter, but it strikes me as odd that the district court is used for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation in default of agreement where land is acquired, but if the amount happens to be over the district court jurisdiction, £50, then the whole costly machinery of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, is brought into operation.

The reason for that is clear. I referred to it on the Oils and Minerals Act when it was passing through the House. The Land Acquisition Act of 1919 gives to the owners of land far less compensation than they would get if they went into court. I made that case so strongly at the time that I have the clearest recollection that Senator Stanford, who, I think, heard it for the first time, was so impressed that he thought the Minister should have another look at the matter. I regard this as a mischievous derogation of the rights of property owners that in the case of land, where the value claimed is under £50, then the district court is all right but where the land is more valuable and likely to be more costly to the local authority, then you use the tribunal which is bound to provide a lower price than would be fixed if the Circuit Court or the High Court, as the case may be, were asked to determine it.

I do not understand the reason why all this costly machinery of the arbitrator under this Act should be brought into action when the courts are there to do justice between a local authority and a private individual. It is significant also that in relation to damage done in the course of inspection for the purpose of acquisition the court is the ordinary court of competent jurisdiction, which means £50, £600 and above £600. If damage is done to the extent of, say, between £50 and £600, you can go to the Circuit Court to assess the damage, but if you want to have the value of your land assessed, you go to this Phoenix-like institution, the arbitrator under the Land Acquisition Act, 1919. Some explanation should be forthcoming as to why there is that difference. I do not think there is any good reason except that, in my view, it is designed principally to give the small farmer, or the landowner, or even the big landowner less compensation than he would get if he went to the ordinary courts.

I notice that the inspector of the local authority, having served notice on the landowner that he intends to inspect the lands, may not be restrained and if he is obstructed, the person so obstructing him is liable to a fine. There is provision, however, for compensation for damage done to growing crops or anything else that may be on the land. I know of people who have suffered quite severe hardship where Electricity Supply Board people went into fields of corn and I hope in the exercise of these powers, local authority officials will carry out these inspections with the minimum of inconvenience. It has been my experience that where damage is done to growing crops, the people concerned never get adequate recompense for all their loss and annoyance, even in a court of justice.

The Minister, when concluding his statement, said that this Bill was more concerned with the machinery of local government than with the format of local government. It is on that particular aspect that I wish to speak. I do not speak as a person with experience in local government. I am not a member of a local authority and my only experience of local government or local authorities is from the receiving end, or the customer's end, if I might call it such. From the experience I have had, I feel there is need to improve the efficiency of local government and of the local authorities. It could be that the attitude of the people dealing with the customers of local authorities is affected by the lack of facilities. On the other hand, it might be affected by the attitude that the people approaching local authorities are regarded as the poorer section of the community, coming with their caps in their hands and not coming with rights they certainly have. Most of us have had the experience of dealing with local authorities in regard to the payment of rates or the payment of housing loans, and from the attitude adopted, it strikes me that the reception you get is completely different from what you would get if you walked into an ordinary business as an ordinary customer. The attitude is all wrong. As I said, it could be that the facilities available to the staff are not adequate and the Bill sets out to give the local authorities more power to acquire land and to provide office buildings.

The other experience I have of local government is in relation to the services provided by local authorities under various Acts, such as the Health Act and the dental treatment provided and such matters as dispensary services. I am aghast at the way the ordinary people are treated by some of the people concerned when they go for services to which they are entitled. The people, no matter if they are rich or poor, are going for what they are entitled to and for what they pay. I think the attitude that because people who come from the poorer sections are going there as beggars is all wrong. In fact, these people, as Senators will realise, are helping to pay the rates in their own small way in the rents they have to pay to local authorities. The rates affect them as well as everybody else. The rates would affect them more if they were better off and were able to live in better accommodation.

They are in a sense ratepayers. They are entitled to be treated properly and certainly entitled to be treated as human beings. There is too much of this attitude. Perhaps, it is related to lack of facilities but sometimes it is related to the idea that these people are regarded more as paupers than as people entitled to services and entitled to a decent reception and treatment.

I hope that the efficiency of the local authority machinery for dealing with people going for services, going with their custom, in other words, will be improved. I feel from the little experience I have that there is need for that improved and increased efficiency which we are told we must have throughout the economy. I think that local authority services could equally have regard to that aspect of the matter.

I rise to support this Bill. It seems, if I read it right and if I understand the Minister, to represent an attempt to simplify the workings of certain powers which it is thought wise, in the community interest, to give to local authorities.

Much has been said about the necessity for protecting the individual landowner. One would sympathise with that, but one must realise, I think, that in such cases as the compulsory acquisition of land, ample compensation is paid and the prime interest ought to be the community interest. These acquisitions are carried out for the sake of the common good. I think we recognise in our modern system that the common good must take first place, and that no individual, however technically influential by reason of his ownership of property, should be allowed to place obstacles in the path of progress in local government.

A lot has been said about damage to land and the unfortunate landowner who might have his land taken from him and so on. In my experience, if such a situation arises, there is an outcry, plenty of fight, and every opportunity for the landowner to defend his case and his ownership; but no mention is made, as a rule, of the fact that in many cases the actual market value of the land to be acquired has already been increased tenfold by reason of community effort.

We have seen in all the towns in Ireland where the local authority has increased the amenities, roads, drainage, and so so, the result is a rise in the money value of sites which were simply fields in the country before these amenities were brought about by community effort, and which gradually become building sites of increasing value. You can see it all around Dublin. It is, I would suggest, too readily accepted in our form of society that we must compensate owners, taking into account the market value, so-called, of these sites on the edges of cities, when, in fact, an enormous proportion of that market value is due to the effort not of the owner but of the community, the local authority. In other words, a great amount of the compensation given to the owner of land represents entirely unearned increment.

As we are talking about the injustice of the acquisition of land in certain circumstances, I should like to talk about the injustice of such compensation, of paying amounts grossly in excess of what has been added to the land by the owner of that land. Furthermore, and in the same connection, we have in Dublin, I think more than is adverted to sufficiently, derelict sites all over the place. Some of them have been acquired and not developed, but great numbers of them remain in private hands—derelict sites which have not yet been acquired—and when they are acquired by the local authorities, they will probably have a very high price paid for them in "compensation". The fact that they have been derelict for years and have been of no use to the owners or the community will not be taken into consideration.

I should have liked the Minister perhaps under this Bill, to have shown some awareness of the merit of the system long ago suggested in this city, of rating all site values and not just buildings, because it is at present in the interest of many owners of tumbledown city property to let it tumble down, whereas if they had to pay rates on site values, it would be in their own interest to develop the sites.

Looking around Dublin, we can see that all kinds of things could be done by local authorities with the help of these simplified powers, perhaps, but also with heightened imagination. Those who have seen anything of cities in Britain after the war, the bomb sites in London, for instance, are struck by the fact that even a few square yards have been transformed into beautiful gardens or havens of rest and beauty. In Dublin, we allow them to lie derelict even where large firms are prepared to do something about them. We remember the gasometer which appeared out of the pavement, so to speak, in front of Jacob's Factory during the war. There is nothing on the site now and nothing is being done about it, although I understand that the local authority has persistently been approached with a view to its using its powers for the creation of real amenities for the city on this site. I do not want to speak further on that but merely to direct attention to the necessity for this type of intelligent use of such derelict sites. I should like to wind up, therefore, with an expression of hope that the simplification in the use of the powers of local authorities granted by this Bill will result in a more active and imaginative use of those powers by our local authorities in future.

With regard to Sections 2 and 4, is a new principle more or less brought in the use of the term "the appropriate Minister"? It seems to me, as a member of a local authority, that this will leave us at times in a very complicated position and will lead to a great deal of delay. For instance, in subsection (2) of Section 2, you could get two Ministers concerned and the third Minister, the Minister for Local Government, would have to come in to make a decision. In Section 4 we have the Minister for Local Government making arrangements for borrowing, after consultation with the Minister for Finance. Incidentally, "after consultation" seems to be unnecessary. It seems to have no meaning in the Bill, a point which I mentioned previously. If borrowing and acquisition by a local authority were left with the Department of Local Government, it would be a much more simple approach. I can envisage the local authority trying to get a decision in a short time from possibly four different Departments. I do not know whether it is a new principle, but surely it could much more beneficially be left completely with the Department of Local Government.

I should like to support Senator O'Quigley's suggestion about adding the word "park" or "playground" in Section 10. I do not know whether the local authority have power to acquire land adjacent to a town for a park or playground. There was a small park in the centre of my own town but it has now been built upon. I have always thought it a great pity that it was never acquired by the local authority and kept an open space.

Senator Stanford referred to the position in Westport. I am familiar with that town as I go there quite often. I think the owner offered the land in dispute to the town as a park rather than have it built on adjacent to his private house. It is a pity other sites are not got for houses in towns where land is available quite close to the centre of the town. The same can be said in relation to many towns and villages. Such plots can be a great asset when the town begins to expand. They can be used as parks, as playgrounds or even as gardens. Therefore, I should like to see the inclusion of the word "park" or "playground" in the section.

When land is acquired by a local authority for building, say, labourers cottages, it frequently happens that it is acquired and the project completed before the county councils hear very much about it. I strongly object to the taking of plots out of the corner of a very good arable field. I know two owners of land on which cottages were built. They told me they did not know how it could have been avoided. Anybody who ploughs or tills land realises that a good square field is a great asset. In two instances, it has happened that a plot was taken out of the corner of such fields in my neighbourhood. I must say with sorrow that, from what I see, almost 50 per cent. of the plots added to labourers cottages are left idle most of the year round. I know of instances in County Meath where good land was taken for such purposes. Some of the persons concerned cut the hay on their portion of it and some do not even do that. It is a pity to take good land for that purpose especially when so many three-cornered plots can be acquired.

The Minister has told us that one of the objects of this Bill is to standardise the present procedures for compulsory purchase. Apparently there are two different procedures (1) in relation to land required for housing, health, public assistance and mental hospitals and (2) in relation to land required for roads, and so on. Now there will be one standard procedure.

On occasions such as this, I always feel it is necessary that somebody should speak on behalf of the ordinary citizen. In both the Dáil and this House, there is a very strong representation of county councillors. We are aware of the good work done by the councils and the councillors. There are certain points on which the councillors are in agreement, although there may be some slight or some strong political difference of one kind or another. Generally, they are in agreement on housing, the widening of roads, the acquisition of land, and so on. There is a tendency to want to get on with the job. There may be a danger to the individual who happens to stand in the way, whether reasonably or unreasonably, because they will want to deal with him in the most expenditious way. That raises the question of justice or injustice in the taking of property and in payment for it.

As Senators have pointed out, there have been cases where land has rather arbitrarily been looked at and taken over, in so far as it may have been good agricultural land, when possibly alternative sites were available. There is also an aesthetic consideration. It is quite wrong and sometimes it is overlooked in this country—decreasingly so, I should say—that a certain type of building should be erected in juxtaposition with another type of residence already there. Take for instance, a Georgian house to which is attached a beautiful estate. It is not often realised that the community at large is very much concerned with a beautiful estate or a beautiful house. I know of cases where unsightly or unsuitable houses were erected in juxtaposition to a beautiful house with a beautiful parkland attached.

There is a hangover from the days when it was felt that some people were living in luxury in big houses while others were living in squalor in small houses. That position does not obtain today and such feelings are not justified nowadays.

I have in mind a very beautiful house with a nice parkland attached. There was a proposal to erect county council houses right beside it. When the case was brought before the county council, I am glad to say they agreed not to proceed with the scheme on that site and moved it to another site. An interesting feature which transpired from the inquiry is that people already living alongside that beautiful house in council houses said they themselves would not like to see council houses erected on the proposed site as they would interfere with the amenities which, living alongside that beautiful house and the parkland attached to it, they were able to enjoy. It constituted a nice green belt. If the site were used for houses, the view from the existing council houses would be of concrete buildings rather than of a delightful wooded parkland. That is a case where aesthetic considerations were in fact practical ones even for the people who were going to live in the county council houses.

We all realise that we are living in a world where both Governments and States could be described as acquisitive, inquisitive and disposing of people's lives. We accept that for the general good, but what we must be careful about is to see that we do not push the powers of the State too fast or too far over the rights of individuals. So long as we constantly keep in mind the importance of individual rights, at the same time, by education, if by no other way, or even by force, the individual must be made to realise that he has a duty to the general good of the community at large. If we could only balance these two considerations one against the other, we would have an ideal State, but I suppose we shall never have an ideal State in a natural world; but if when considering acquisition orders or compulsory acquisition, we always keep these considerations in view and if somebody brings them into a debate on this subject, at least we shall always be able to hold back from unfair or unjust advances on the rights of citizens through this form of compulsory acquisition.

The only matter about which I should like to ask the Minister is his statement in reply to the second Reading debate in the Dáil that in the last analysis, the old method did not give any further or greater protection to those from whom land is to be acquired than does the present more speedy form of compulsory acquisition order. I should like to know if it gives less protection. I hope the position of the property owner is not being worsened.

I should like to add that in my own residence, I have had three compulsory acquisition orders on my property in the past 15 years, and in all cases I must pay tribute to the county council and the officials. I was dealt with in a most enlightened, tactful and just manner. For my own part, therefore, my experience of compulsory acquisition has been a very happy one. I hope the experiences of others will be the same.

I welcome the Bill which I hope will clear up a problem such as that of a health authority wishing to erect a dispensary on land owned by a county council, which cannot sell them the land. Another very important point is that brought out by Senator Sheehy Skeffington regarding the acquisition and development of land and what it means to certain people in south County Dublin particularly and in certain portions of north County Dublin, where the local authority provided water and sewerage facilities. The ordinary value of the land previous to that would be, say, £100 or £150 at the outside, but because water and sewerage facilities were provided, certain quacks whose idea was to get rich quick acquired this land and sold it at £250 per site, with a ground rent of £12 at least. That is something the Government should not allow, for it is nothing but robbery. I would be in favour of reasonable payment but that is ridiculous.

Senator Murphy dealt with the very important matter of the borrower, the ordinary person making an honest effort to provide his own home and get the deposit ready and then get a loan from the local authority. Great difficulties and obstacles are sometimes put in his way. I know of one case where a person was 2/6d. below a certain figure and the manager refused him a loan, and another case where because he was 5/- over, he was refused. Managers should have more consideration for those people. As Senator Murphy pointed out, one would imagine they were getting something for nothing, but if they get a loan of £1,500, they repay something over £3,000, so they ought to be treated as customers would be treated in a shop.

The Bill aims at getting better office accommodation for the officials of local authorities. I am concerned with better accommodation being provided for the people who provide their own homes by getting a loan which they repay in full, plus big interest, over the years, and who are ratepayers. It is a shame the way they are treated. Go into any local office and you will see them being treated as so many inferior beings. I am sorry I have to say that, speaking as a member of a local authority for 30 years. A woman comes in with a child in her arms at five minutes past four and is told: "We are not taking any money after four o'clock." So she has to go back the six or seven miles she has travelled and come again. The borrower should be given more consideration.

There is one important point on which I should like to appeal to the Minister and to every member listening to me, that is, that the Government should take action against certain building societies in this city which gave loans to people at, say, 6 per cent and when the people had been a year or two in the houses, increased the loan charges to 7 per cent., the result being that if they got a loan of £1,400 or £1,500, they are unexpectedly being made to pay an extra £15.

The Senator is going very far from the Bill.

I do not know if I am, because Part II deals with the borrowing and lending of money and I should be inclined to say that the small borrower should be considered. I would make a special appeal to the Minister, though it may be outside the scope of this Bill, to take some action to ensure that during the time of repayment of a loan, the rate of interest cannot be increased. Many of these people are now going to lose their homes through being unable to pay the extra charges. As a public man dealing with housing for a long number of years, I feel that the action of a building society in treating its customers in this fashion should not be tolerated in a Christian country.

The point with which I am principally concerned is that the Bill must deal with exorbitant charges made for land acquired and developed by a local authority and then taken over by some of these people who want to get rich quick. Again, I hope that when these new offices are provided, the ordinary public, the people helping to keep the officials and management in their places, will be treated with more respect than they are now receiving.

This Bill deals with a number of matters which are mainly technical and which, as other speakers have pointed out, it would be much better to discuss in Committee. Part II of the Bill is definitely open to criticism. It gives the Minister power to do things by ministerial order which should more properly be done by legislation.

I object to that procedure. I do not blame the Minister for it. It has been done by this Government and other Governments in the past. As has been pointed out by Senator Stanford and other Senators, taking action by regulation rather than legislation leaves us open to certain dangers. That should be remembered and we should guard against this procedure as we are legislating for the future.

There is no doubt that the work of local authorities is increasing each year and indeed will increase further in the years to come. We must have some concern for the ratepayers and for those who foot the bill. All Governments are equally to blame in that regard. Governments are very fond of bringing in legislation in order to get credit for it, and they then pass the baby on to the local authorities and ask the local ratepayers to foot the bill. We all know that happens very often.

Some years ago, before we got our freedom, there was an outcry because it was costing £11 million to run the country. If we look at the figures, we find that over £25 million is being collected in rates at the present time and if we take in grants from the central authority for housing, health, sanitary services, etc., we find that the local authorities are now spending over £55 million per annum in this country, that is, over £1 million per week. That is a huge sum, and it is time the Minister woke up to the burden the ratepayers are now carrying.

I should like to sound a note of warning with regard to the granting of these extra powers of borrowing, powers which may be abused. There is no doubt they will be abused by certain county councils, by irresponsible county councils, because some county councils have no respect for other people's money. The Minister will agree that, at the present time, the total indebtedness of the county councils is something between £150 million and £160 million and that a large portion of the rates has to go each year to service that debt. The Minister knows, I suppose, of the flight from the land and of the dwindling numbers in small villages and towns, especially in the west of Ireland. There is no doubt that situation is contributed to by increasing rates and increasing taxation. For example, the income of the farmer, and especially the small farmer, has dropped by 10 per cent. in the past seven years, while his rates have increased by over 20 per cent. If incentive is given to borrow more, they will increase further in the years ahead. That is very bad business.

In 1953, the index figure for the income of farmers was 100. It went up as high as 106 in 1957 and today it stands at a little less than 96. That represents a 10 per cent. drop in income, while, as I said, their rates have increased by 20 per cent. Their cost of living has increased and that probably represents another 10 or 12 per cent. I think it only right to sound a note of warning that those people are unable to bear any further burdens. The Minister should remember that it was the last straw that broke the camel's back.

There are many people who claim that a curb should be put on borrowing rather than giving the county councils authority to borrow more money. As I stated, a substantial portion of the rates has to be paid in bank interest. There are many people who claim, too, that moneys lent by the banks to the local authorities for house building, hospital building, sewerage schemes, water schemes, etc., should be lent at a lower rate of interest. I do not know whether the Minister can do anything about that.

As I said a few moments ago, the total indebtedness of the local authorities is in the region of £150 million or £160 million. Once this Bill becomes law, the tendency will be to borrow more money and to increase that indebtedness. Posterity will have a difficult time when the day of reckoning comes. The day of reckoning comes to each and every one of us, if we borrow money. It will certainly come to our county councils in years to come and many of them may curse some of us who are on local bodies at the present time for the load we left them to carry. If that debt has to be liquidated in the future, it can be liquidated only by increasing the rates still further. In my opinion, there has already been a justifiable outcry against the increase that has taken place year after year in the rates collected by the local authorities.

As a member of a local authority, my view on this Bill is that it is a sign of the times. When Senator L'Estrange mentioned the mounting burden of rates, he was, of course, really talking about the fact that so much more is now placed as a load on the backs of the ratepayer and so much less is placed as a charge on central expenditure.

I shall relate that general remark to Part II, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill. I know quite well that some machinery is necessary whereby one local authority can lend to another local authority, particularly when they are interlaced, but I can understand the worry and the fear which Senator L'Estrange has expressed. This is merely an enabling Part whereby local authorities, who are not perhaps as responsible as the Oireachtas, can lead their people into greater expenditure. The only good thing I can say about this Part of the Bill—and mark you, I am the first to say that something of this nature was necessary—is that the sanction of the Minister must be sought. Sanction must be sought if the local authority is to borrow, lend or issue stock. That really is the only justification for those sections because, in my view, that brings everything back to Oireachtas Éireann. If that is a defence, it is the only defence I can see.

When I come to Part III, Section 10, the borrowing section, I find myself in disagreement with the Bill. As a person who had experience not so long ago in relation to the acquisition of land for a road for which the Minister gave a 100 per cent. grant, I would express myself as entirely dissatisfied with the awards under the provisional orders. I believe that the procedure for the acquisition of land is in fact expedited and accelerated if there is hanging over these people's heads, not a provisional order but a compulsory acquisition order.

I think the procedure outlined by the Minister whereby there was a much longer road to travel, and many more things to be done under the provisional order where land is to be acquired for roads, bridges, sanitary services, and office accommodation, under the old situation, was a good thing because it gave an opportunity to people to voice their claims. It gave further opportunity to people to make their case and it gave time for local feeling to develop and for people to make their case known to officials, to county managers. Those people who under the compulsory purchase order would have to go through a lesser number of operations to get the land with that hanging over the land-owner's head, would in fact be far less likely to listen to the landowner and to seek agreement than if the only weapon that could be used were a provisional order.

Senator Stanford said that county councillors here would not be very pleased when he said that there was danger of a clique getting power in the county councils and doing something unjust, a clique of people with one object in view. I am a county councillor and I am an alderman of Drogheda like my colleague opposite, Senator Walsh, and I did not disagree with Senator Stanford. I would draw the attention of the Seanad to the fact that except in rural areas where apparently there is still a keen interest in politics, local authority elections have been largely neglected. One has only to look at the percentage poll in the city of Dublin, or in the cities of Waterford, Galway, Cork and Limerick, or the percentage poll in places like Drogheda, to see that the local elections there did not catch the interest of the populace. The local elections did not produce a good poll. For that reason, the elected representatives are not really representative of the wishes of the people. If the people have not awakened to the fact that local authorities are bodies which can exert an influence for good on their lives and do not bother to vote, then the wrong people can be elected. In my view, Senator Stanford is quite right when he says that there is no danger in the Oireachtas of a clique taking over which would be irresponsible. In fact, in the Oireachtas, it is true to say that the result of an election is generally indicative of the wishes of the people but I believe that in many areas the results of the local elections are not indicative of the wishes of the people. In such a situation, any widening of powers is dangerous and I feel that Section 10 and the succeeding sections in Part III which extend the powers of the local authorities and makes office accommodation, sanitary services, roads and bridges the subjects of compulsory acquisition order is a bad thing.

The Minister made the point that the old provisional order did not give any greater protection. I do not agree, for the reason that I have already outlined. The old provisional order ensured that there was a longer period, more procedures to be gone through, and during that period cases could be made, public opinion could be sought—and everybody, even the Oireachtas, must be subject in some measure to public opinion. For that reason, I believe the old provisional order did give a better chance to the landowner to get a fairer compensation.

I would draw attention, particularly the attention of Senator Sheehy Skeffington, to the fact that there are such people as poor landowners. I have referred already to the acquisition of some land near where I live and my reason for saying this is merely as a contrast to the contribution made by Senator Sheehy Skeffington. All the people concerned were poor, small farmers and in one case a man's three best fields and six paddocks were affected. For that, he is to get £1,100. He is a man of 70 years or thereabouts, living with his two sisters. In my opinion, that man's livelihood has been interfered with and his future life will in fact be changed. No recompense such as £1,100 will compensate him for the inconvenience he has been caused, with the road now passing within a few feet of his front door, on which cars travel at 70 to 80 miles per hour. The same would apply to seven or eight different holdings. Therefore, I should like to make that case in this instance against Senator Sheehy Skeffington for the poor landowners, because, let us face it, there are plenty of them today.

I always seem to be taking the side here of the person who has property, probably because I have the greatest respect for ownership of property and I feel that the only approach anyone can have to property is that it takes its chances. If, in fact, there is what is termed over-compensation for property which was worth a small amount and is now worth a greater amount because a watermain or sewerage main has been put alongside it, then that is the chance the owner takes, just as if on the opposite side of the road, a factory building which might be regarded as obnoxious by a house-owner were erected, the owner of the property would have suffered a reduction of the value of his holding. There is only one way we can approach property, that is, on the basis of risk value. When a man pays his rates, he takes his chances of some operation of the county council interfering with his future enjoyment of the property. Similarly, he takes the chance of that local authority enhancing the value of his property by some operation.

I did take particular exception to a phrase used by Senator Sheehy Skeffington when he referred to "technical" ownership. I want to assure him that there is no such thing as a technical ownership of property. The laws of the State are quite clear. There is nothing technical about it. It is quite clear and explicit: ownership of property is direct and absolute ownership of property is direct and absolute ownership.

Finally, I would say that on the Committee Stage the Opposition in the Seanad will have to examine this Bill analytically and table some amendments. I believe that while there are the obvious reasons why something in the nature of the provision in Part II, Sections 4, 5, 6, had to be made, I do not for a moment concede that the ideal was achieved. On Committee Stage, which I hope will be somewhat delayed, I feel that the members of the Seanad in general and the Opposition in particular should look analytically and generally at this Bill.

I do not intend to say very much on this measure because my view is that it is a measure which is restricted in its nature. Many of the things we listened to from some of the speakers were not within the scope of the Bill at all. We had a rather comprehensive discussion on local government in connection with this measure. One would imagine by the observations made by certain speakers here that revolutionary powers were being sought by the Minister through the medium of this measure. Such, of course, is not the case. All the Minister proposes to do in this case is to widen the powers local authorities already have to borrow money for the good of the community. That is a principle that has been recognised here throughout the years. As I said, there is nothing strange or revolutionary in it.

So far as I can follow the provisions of the Bill, the Minister is giving powers to local authorities to borrow money for certain additional services which did not come within the scope of their functions before. I think we should have no qualms of conscience in giving local authorities these widened powers because it has been said already, if not here, elsewhere, that the members of these local authorities are responsible people. They have a sense of responsibility to the community—a much greater sense of responsibility than many people seem to be inclined to give them credit for.

An instance of that is the attitude of these local authorities when the annual estimates come up for examination and scrutiny. These local authorities spend days and sometimes weeks going over these estimates to see where they can be pruned to keep down public expense. They do that for the benefit of the ratepayers to whom they consider they are responsible, so that when people say that local authorities should not get powers to do this or that, they seem to lose sight of the fact that the members of the local authorities have a sense of responsibility in accordance with the importance of their position.

As regards the indebtedness of local authorities to which Senators referred, no doubt the figure is rather large, but at the same time, there is another side to that picture, that is, that those people who refer to the heavy indebtedness of the local authorities should also advert to the fact that this indebtedness has been brought about because of all the improvements that have been effected all over the country. We have roads second to none. We have new houses all over the place, fine houses. We have built bridges and provided other amenities that would not have been considered in bygone days. All these things cost money. They cannot be done without money and if there is indebtedness, there is something to show for it. There is a corresponding result to be seen.

We are living in a progressive age and if we are to keep pace with the times, we have to do many things that would not have been considered in the past. People nowadays, ratepayers and others, are more exacting in their demands and in their expectations than was the case some years ago. You now have very often deputations coming to county council meetings about this, that and the other thing, but sometimes the things which these deputations look for cannot be granted or cannot be done because of the lack of money or because the local authorities concerned lack the power to take the necessary action.

I think Senator Sheehy Skeffington was right when he said that our most important consideration is the good of the community as a whole and if individual rights have to be abrogated sometimes for the community good, I think there is nothing wrong with that. I am in favour of this Bill. I am prepared to support it and give the widest powers to the local authorities which the Minister has in mind. I do not think they will abuse these powers. They have not abused them in the past. I do not think it can be said that our local authorities have abused any powers they had in the past. They have been careful and circumspect about the spending of public money— as careful, perhaps, as we would be ourselves. That being so, I am supporting this Bill.

I welcome this Bill, which, in my view, will help to simplify matters. Some people consider that the word "compulsory" will be applied drastically. When the drive for housing, for water schemes and sewerage schemes and other such projects started, it cannot be denied that if the county councils had not compulsory powers, they would have met with obstacles at every turn. Like Senator Ó Cíosáin, I want to see these powers used with great care. In my experience, very few hardships have been inflicted. As far as I can recall, any property acquired for county council work was adequately compensated for. Nobody can deny that the moment a county council became interested in land or anything else, its value went up about 500 per cent. overnight.

Certainly they can. It did not go up 500 per cent. It might have, in Clare.

Senator L'Estrange was not interrupted.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order!

The playboy must butt in. He must try to seem intelligent. His standard of intelligence does not reach a very high level.

We shall leave all that to Senator Brady. All the intelligence is in the west when you put them on councils.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order! Senator Brady, on the Bill.

I am glad to see this Bill. It will help to simplify matters very much for the local authorities. I agree with what Senator Ó Cíosáin said about indebtedness. The important thing is that we have provided housing, water, sewerage, hospitals and other services for our community. Every day, organisations such as Muintir na Tíre, the National Farmers' Association, the Irish Countrywomen's Association, and so on, come to county councils with demands for this, that and the other. The only way the people can have these services is by paying for them and the only people who can pay for them are the ratepayers.

Senator Donegan spoke about local authorities not being representative because the people did not go out to vote. I have never heard such a statement in a democratic Assembly. If they did not consider it worth their while to exercise the franchise, what grievance have they? Probably they had too much contempt for the people who were going forward. However, if there were people going forward who represented other interests or external interests, they would probably come out and vote and no doubt they would be representative of the people. If they did not exercise the franchise when they were asked to elect representatives to local authorities, they have absolutely no grievance. The people who were elected were elected by the ballot box and can claim to be fully-elected representatives of the people.

Hear, hear! It is a pity you did not say that in 1922.

That is not going down so well. The salt is going in.

It is well taken.

At another time, it will be said that the housing drive is being halted, and so on. Surely, that is speaking with two voices. I believe that in no case will the interests of landowners or the people concerned be trampled upon.

Because this Bill does some simplifying and some tidying-up, I welcome it. The great increase in local government expenditure over the past 20 years is attributable to two very clear causes: (1) the great extension of social services, the provision of housing and public amenities and (2) the extraordinary deterioration in the value of money. What we could do for £1,000,000 in 1938 would cost about £2½ million now. There is a silver lining to that inasmuch as we started the work in the intervening years with borrowed money and are now repaying with less valuable money. The only people who suffer are those who owned the money in the first place. We have the houses, the roads, the hospitals and the bridges. Despite Senator Sheehy Skeffington, social revolution is being accomplished in that matter.

The only point I do not like in this Bill is that it gives room to accommodate the desire of the central Government to transfer more of its functions, its spending and its activity to the shoulders of local government. We should resist that trend; possibly we have found it impossible to do so up to this.

Lack of power to stop the great increase in the cost of local government may be one reason why there has been so little interest in the recent local elections.

This discussion has ranged far and wide from the Lakes of Killarney to the income of our farmers.

It is within the Long Title. It is relevant.

Perhaps it is and perhaps it is not. While there have been some excellent expositions of various cases that may arise under this Bill or under Bills in relation to such matters, there has also been quite a lot of wandering from the points we have been discussing. That places me in somewhat of a difficulty. A great deal of what might be called Committee discussion has taken place on the details of sections and subsections. If I were to do full justice to the points raised and reply to them in detail now, it would be tantamount to usurping the functions of this House when we reach Committee Stage. I hope not to dwell so long on these matters that have been brought up here tonight, and to leave them to the appropriate stage as the occasion arises.

Senator Stanford asked in the very initial stages of the debate what are the safeguards in connection with compulsory purchase orders. The best thing I might do is to read a prepared document giving information in that aspect so that there will be no doubt in any Senator's mind as to the actual position under the Bill when we come to the later stages.

Compulsory purchase orders made by the local authority, and confirmed by the Minister, are the means used to effect compulsory acquisition of land under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. The procedure is contained in Section 37 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931, and the Second Schedule to that Act. A compulsory purchase order must be in the prescribed form and describe by reference to a map the land to which it applies. Before it is submitted to the Minister, it must be published in one or more newspapers circulating within the district of the local authority; and notices must be served on every owner, lessee and occupier—except monthly or lesser tenants—of the land to which the order relates. Two or three weeks are allowed for objecting, at the local authority's discretion. If no objections are made to the order, or if any objections made are withdrawn, the Minister may confirm the order without inquiry, but in any other case, unless the Minister is satisfied that the order should be annulled, a public local inquiry must be held. After consideration of the report of the inquiry, the order may be confirmed with or without modifications. Notice of the confirming order is published and circulated by the local authority and the order becomes operative three weeks afterwards. There is an appeal to the High Court on points of law only.

This document should give the House and opportunity of knowing the safeguards that exist for the land and property owner, lest there might be any fear that in this Bill his rights or the rights of those classes may in any way be lessened.

A point was made about the building in Killarney, that because such building was allowed to take place, the values of property and the national value of Killarney lakes have been reduced, and that while there were widespread objections at the time, nothing could be done. The situation is that in that case nothing could then be done, but for this very good reason, that the Planning Acts were not brought into force in Kerry, and when these buildings came to be put up, the permission of the local authority had not necessarily to be got, and no appeal lay to any quarter by any aggrieved party.

That is the first lesson to be learned from the situation in Killarney. The lesson has got home, because I believe since then Kerry County Council have brought the Planning Acts into operation, so that, in relation to the like happening again, the steps necessary to protect the interests of the public have now been taken, and if any such matter should in future arise in the functional area of Kerry County Council, objectors may have the right of appeal to the Minister, if they so wish.

Senator Stanford also asked, and the same point can be found as I read through the notes I have made of other speakers, what additional powers of acquisition were being given under this Bill. I want to say that it confers no additional powers. This is the kernel of the arguments we may have here and have had in the Dáil. We are not dealing with additional powers being conferred under this Bill.

A different manner of doing it.

I repeat that there is no new power of acquisition conferred on local authorities by this Bill.

A different manner of doing it which changes the situation for the owner of the land.

I am merely pointing out that no additional powers of acquisition are being conferred on local authorities under this Bill. The power they now have derives from an Act of 1898 which governed the method whereby compulsory acquisition may take place. The procedure is being changed in these cases we are talking about. Let me say again just to allay the fears of Senators who may feel that the change in procedure means a change in the powers—lest they may have fears in that direction that I cannot allay regardless of how many times I may repeat myself—that the procedure we are now seeking to have brought into being for reasons I have already enumerated is already in existence, and has been in existence since as far back as 1931, in relation to land for housing purposes, for health services, public assistance and mental hospitals; and if we are to go even further, we might also point out that land might be compulsorily acquired for office accommodation to serve the staffs for any of those purposes or services, and that it could, and can also at the present time, be acquired by the compulsory purchase order procedure.

I might put it this way, by asking a question: is there any difference between the use of compulsory purchase order procedure to acquire land to house the health services staff in a county, and acquiring land to house some of the general working staffs of the same county council? That in fact is an analogy that is very clearly seen, that staffs of the health services can have land compulsorily acquired, so that a building may be provided to give them office accommodation, under the compulsory purchase order procedure as at present, but objection is being taken to the same thing if we want to house their colleagues from the general county council service, on the plea that we should use the cumbersome and outdated provisional order procedure in acquiring land for such people.

If we wanted to build offices for both categories together—and it might be very difficult to differentiate as to which part of the building should be, and had for all time to be, used by either of those categories; or indeed we might have three or four categories of people for multiple purposes —we had one procedure, that of compulsory purchase order, available to us on the one hand, and on the other side of the corridor in the same building, we should have provisional orders. I cannot see where any new fears can be raised in the mind of any reasonable person approaching this matter when I put before this House the proposition that the compulsory purchase order procedure should in fact operate in all of these cases, and not just in one, two, three or four of them as it does at present.

To those who feel that by virtue of a change in procedure, the power of acquisition seems to be greater I would say that I do not agree with them. I leave the case to the House as I have put it, for consideration between now and Committee Stage. When it comes to that stage, I think Senators will agree that it is better to have a uniform procedure in so far as it is compatible with the general good. I see no reason which would indicate that this uniformity is in any way incompatible with the common good, and I think it is better that we should have uniformity wherever possible. I believe it is not only possible, in this instance, but that it is very desirable. The experience of a number of local authorities has shown—by their inability to get certain things done for office buildings which would make for better services to the public, particularly in Dublin— that the procedure under the provisional orders is prolonged, cumbersome and faulty.

There is a need for change but what I am suggesting is not new. We are not doing something which has never before been tried. There is no radical change. We are, in fact, bringing these cases into line with a procedure which has existed as far back as 1931 in regard to the various services I have mentioned, and which has operated, I suppose, in thousands of cases, due to the housing drive. This procedure has operated in the past in far more cases on housing and such matters than it is ever likely to be used for in the foreseeable future. It has not proved to be objectionable, unconstitutional or incompatible with the general good through the years of its operation. I put it to the House that there can be no reason why the future will show a difference.

The new procedure will enable jobs to be done which up to the moment have been stultified by poor procedure and poor law. If it means better office buildings for Dublin city, through vacating the 20 odd premises rented throughout the city and centralising the staffs, it should mean an economy and a saving on the operation of those staffs. It should mean very greatly improved services to the community in Dublin. It should make for an improvement when a person going to the city building, if and when it is erected, will be at the fountainhead. At the moment he has to go from one address to another and, possibly, having spent the entire day at it, will finish in the evening still not having reached the fountainhead he wanted to reach in regard to his problem or business.

It has been said—I regret that I heard it and I add my voice to the condemnation poured on it by Senator Tunney, if it is true—that public officials in corporations and county councils are inclined to treat the public, regardless of whether they are poor or rich, in an offhand way, in an insulting manner and in a manner which does not give service and courtesy to those people. I would say immediately that I condemn that fully, and I ask members of all local authorities, in so far as it lies within their power to do so, to ascertain if such is the case in any part of their local service and if it is, to communicate with me. I do not know what our powers jointly would be, but I am sure that if such is the case, between us, we will be able to see that those people who are supposed to be the public servants of local authorities treat the populace, and particularly the poorer element, with the respect due to them.

Senator Burke mentioned that we were giving wider powers of borrowing to local authorities and he felt the ultimate good of such widening of borrowing powers was questionable. I for one—I have said this many times but I had better say it again—believe that the local authorities are elected by the people. I do not agree with Senator Donegan that they are not representative of the people, because they have been elected by the voters. I believe—and until the contrary is proved, I shall continue to believe— that the local authorities are composed of responsible people, who, in their actions in matters such as the spending or the borrowing of money, will have regard to the good of the people they represent. I believe that their actions in general represent the wishes of the people who put them there. I have no fears about that and, as I say, until it is proved otherwise, I shall continue to believe that local authority members are, in the main, a conservative group rather than a group to which it would be dangerous to extend borrowing powers. I have the fullest belief that in regard to the spending of money which will immediately or ultimately lead to an increase in the rates, the conservative view is far more likely to prevail in these elected groups of people than the radical view, or the view that you can spend all you wish and let someone else pay for it.

I do not at all agree with the views expressed and apart from what I have said about the conservatism of councils in matters of finance I do not see any danger even if there is, in any sense, a widening of the borrowing powers. In the main, these powers are subject, and will continue to be subject, to the Minister for Local Government, who, in turn, will be in accord with the Minister for Finance, and in accord with general Government policy. If the Government are not agreeable, the Minister for Finance cannot give money, so the Minister for Local Government has not got it, and the councils cannot avail of it. That surely is a sufficient safeguard. If it appears in the Bill that there is a widening of these powers, the general history of local authorities in their borrowing and in their approach to borrowing, added to the safeguards which I have mentioned, appears so secure that I do not think any member of this or the other House, or any member of the public need have any qualms whatsoever that wasteful and unnecessary spending of the ratepayers' money will be perpetrated by an elected representative on any council in the country.

The first thing of significance—if it is of significance — which Senator O'Quigley said was that he took no comfort from any assurance by any Minister on any matter. All I can say for the Senator is that if that is so, uneasy must rest his head every night he goes to bed. He must accept these assurances, because otherwise he must be in a mentally strained condition for practically all of his life.

You get used to it.

I sincerely hope you do. However, in so far as these fears of his are concerned, or rather his lack of comfort in the assurances given by me, the Senator went on to say that he believed that after regulations were made by the Minister, the Minister knew nothing about what was going on. Sometimes as Minister, I might feel that I would like to agree with the Senator, but I can tell the Senator that in matters such as these, all Ministers of Local Government will be aware of what is going on. It is the Minister's job to be aware of what is going on, and when it comes to a question of the rights of the individual versus the demands of a body of power, such as a corporation or county council, then, despite the fact that a Minister might be held in many other ways to have leanings towards the local authorities, it has been my own experience, and I think the experience of all other Ministers, that the individual's right is the right which he feels he must lean towards. For some reason—I have never tried to analyse it—one feels, as a Minister, on a matter which requires adjudication and which comes before him, as do these matters of acquisition, that one's sympathy lies with the individual; one's sympathy is with the one or two people against the corporation or the corporate body. Far from the procedure being in any way loaded against the rights of the individual, the procedure as we have been using it, and as we hope to use it in the future, has, if anything, been leaning towards the right of the individual as against the demands of any other large body.

In regard to Section 13, it was suggested there was something wrong in that, up to £50, compensation claims may be dealt with by the courts, but that the same facility was not given for larger claimants, who are brought before a tribunal in order that they will not get as good a deal or as good a payment by way of compensation as would the claimant who made his claim to the courts. The fact is, in regard to this section, that it has been brought from a previous statute, the Health Act of 1947, and by way of amendment in the Dáil, we changed one word in the whole section. It is a very lengthy section as Senators will find when we come to it and the one word changed was the word "twenty" which was changed to "fifty".

The jurisdiction in the 1947 Act of the district court was confined to a payment not exceeding £20. In the light of general changes with regard to the jurisdiction of the district court and other courts of law, and also to bring the £20 value up to a more realistic present-day figure, we agreed, on the Report Stage in the Dáil, to change that figure to £50. It is not an innovation and more sizable claims than £50 can be dealt with as we have been dealing with them since the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. We have transferred the section from the 1947 Act but in fact the power in the form in which we are now regarding it derives from the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and we believe that it is as reasonable now as it has proved itself to be over the years.

We believe on its own merits it is a reasonable method of approach and that the matter of large claims can in fact be a job requiring very skilled personal knowledge of property values. It is possibly for that reason that at the outset the particular view was taken, but we feel it is as valid today as then, and I do not see any objection to it.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington indicated that in general he supported the Bill. He had a word to say about protecting the rights of the community, as against the general feeling about protecting the rights of the individual property owner. He pointed out that in so far as acquisitions and compensation for land is concerned, in many instances, through no effort whatsoever by the landowner but rather from the community effort through the local councils, the market value of lands is enhanced very considerably.

When it comes to the question of compensation for such lands when acquired, it is fixed at the market value enhanced by community effort without any effort on the part of the owner, and there is really a gratuitous payment, as it were, brought about by the mere accident of where the property to be acquired happens to be situated. I agree that that is so. I agree still further that there seems to be something wrong, but what may be the remedy for it and whether we can remedy it I do not know.

No effort is made in this Bill to provide any remedy in so far as derelict sites are concerned which had nothing done to them by the owner to enhance their value but which because of what has been done by the community acquired an enhanced value even though otherwise remaining static. Not only has nothing been done by the owner but, through his lack of care and attention, a site may become an offence to the public and an eyesore; but despite that it can happen and will no doubt in the future happen that a derelict site may, as it becomes derelict, appreciate in value through the efforts of the community who, in turn, will come to acquire it at some future date, at its market value, by way of compensation. That anomaly exists. I have no remedy for it.

I have a view in the matter something similar to that of Senator Sheehy Skeffington. I am aware of it but I do not see that, without some very radical change which is not proposed in this Bill, we can do very much about it.

The suggestion that the rateable valuation should be on site value rather than on building value is undoubtedly one that would appeal. The question of rateable valuation is not before us and does not come within the terms of this Bill. I join with the Senator in his hopes for more activity and imaginative effort by our local authorities in doing the necessary works and clearing up the unsightly neglected sites that are all too evident throughout the country.

Senator Cole asked in regard to the section that deals with the appropriate Minister for any of the particular matters raised in this Bill, whether the principle of designating the appropriate Minister in regard to these functions is new. It is in so far as these functions are concerned. However, far from the new departure causing the trouble that the Senator has mentioned—that of there being difficulty because two or three Ministers are now introduced—the idea is that in so far as the local authority is concerned they will have but one Minister to deal with. The manner in which that is proposed to be worked in the future is that where two or more Ministers are concerned in the functions for which the local authority propose to acquire land on which to build, the Minister with the greater function— measured in a sense of value I presume—would become the appropriate Minister and it is with that Minister and that Minister alone that the local authority would henceforth have to negotiate, rather than with various Ministers and Departments. that arises where the functions do not include any functions relating to the Minister for Local Government.

Where, however, the Minister for Local Government is concerned, and irrespective of whether his function is greater or less than that of any of the other Ministers concerned in a joint effort or for multiple purposes, it will be the Minister for Local Government with whom the local authority will in all cases deal. The idea is to bring matters to the situation that, regardless of how many interests may be involved, one Minister will become the appropriate and operative Minister, in so far as the local authority is concerned, in any acquisition for these purposes or borrowing as the case may be. That provision is inserted there to simplify and does not in any way raise the question that has been feared by Senator Cole that it may make matters more cumbersome, awkward and difficult.

A suggestion was raised also by Senator Cole, and by an earlier speaker, that they would like to see in this Bill power to acquire land compulsorily for parks or playgrounds. Such power already exists under the Sanitary Services Acts. This Bill does change that position. In other words, while the power exists to acquire land for playgrounds or parks under existing legislation, we are now bringing the procedure to acquire into line with the compulsory purchase orders procedure—thus the wish expressed by both Senators about playgrounds is already met, but at present under provisional order procedure. From the passing of this Bill—if it becomes an Act in the form in which it now is— the uniform approach of compulsory purchase order procedure will apply and this should make it more feasible for local authorities to acquire for those very useful and laudable purposes of children's playgrounds or public parks as local amenities.

Senator Cole also mentioned the spoiling of good arable fields, square or rectangular, by taking a bit out of them. He pointed out that the loss to the farmer is far greater than is the loss of the actual acreage or number of roods or perches of land which is acquired. If the field is a square or a rectangle or reasonably so and a portion is acquired out of a corner, undoubtedly the loss is greater than the actual acreage. The field becomes awkward and costly to work and, for that matter, it is inconvenient to work for all future time. I do not know what the real answer to this is. It certainly is not the answer that was immediately suggested, that of taking the corners of badly-shaped fields or three-cornered fields and in that way reducing the impact of loss on the farmer concerned. In all cases where a portion is taken out of a field it is taken because it may be the only suitable available land that could be built upon. You cannot expect to find in every locality where land may be acquired a misshapen field or a three-cornered field. Even though you may find useless land, very often it is uneconomic to build on, and it may not be situated in a suitable place. I agree with Senator Cole that where small parcels of land of a rood or two are being acquired, if a good square or rectangular field is marred by a corner being taken away, it is a much more serious handicap than the loss of an acre to the farmer. A commonsense approach by the officials and the engineers concerned, and the inspectors, in due course, with the guidance and good sense of local members of the councils throughout the country, should in so far as it is possible, avoid that situation. I believe that in general it is so, and where it does happen, in the great majority of cases it happens because the particular bit of land is the only available piece of land in the locality suitable to serve the particular purpose.

Senator Tunney referred to land speculators and the enhanced value which I have dealt with already, as mentioned by some other speaker. He instanced County Dublin, north and south, and south in particular, where land became immensely valuable almost simultaneously with a gravity feed water supply being made available to the land. What seems to have happened is that it was not the original owners who gained the benefit—that apparently would be tolerated—but somebody with an eye to the future jumped in hurriedly, bought the land at an enhanced rate even at that time, and as a result of its being enhanced further in value by public services being made available, he eventually reaped a very lucrative profit by dividing up the land and selling it as serviced site blocks to the public.

It is difficult and almost impossible to prevent that type of speculation, and while that type of speculation might be regarded as reaping undue profits, nevertheless, the fact is that if there were no speculators in any field, over the years a great deal of good that they have brought about would still not be done, which has in fact been done as a result of their eye for a quick return in the future on money spent. That does not in any way indicate that we condone this type of speculator and particularly if, in the speculator's mind, there is an idea of screwing the last penny out of the public, especially if the public have not got very much option. At the same time, it is one of those things for which I do not think the Oireachtas can legislate, and which, while we might not like all aspects of it, we can scarcely condemn roundly. If we do, I cannot readily see how we would prevent it.

Senator Tunney also mentioned that certain building societies which provide loans have been increasing their interest rates over the years, over and above the original rates to the purchasers. That is a matter which in the first instance was within the competence of the purchasers who have entered into an agreement. If it has taken place, it is a pity that it should take place, if it is a case of profiteering on the part of these builders and building societies. On the other hand, when one comes to sign away the price of a house, or any amount such as that, one usually signs only after due consideration of the terms of the particular contract. If this is now happening, apparently it is because the contracts signed in the past were contracts that should not have been signed but, having been signed, undoubtedly must now be accepted in all their various aspects.

Senator L'Estrange objects to ministerial orders and legislation by order —I scarcely ever come into this or any other place where he is that he has not objected. If Senator L'Estrange examines his mind and his conscience for a little way back in regard to other recent matters in which he has participated, he will likely find that he took an extremely different view in regard to these other matters.

What matters?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am afraid the Minister will draw Senator L'Estrange on him.

Tell me the matters, if you know them.

I will just ask the Senator to examine his mind and his conscience.

There is nothing on my conscience. Perhaps you would rather examine yours.

The point is that Senator L'Estrange, in his assumption that that to which he objects is being perpetrated to an unduly large degree in this Bill, is entirely wrong. The amount of legislation by order, as he calls it, is quite limited in this Bill, and the limitation on the amount that is by order is of such a nature that it is fair; and when it comes to be discussed in detail on Committee Stage, the Senator will agree that the matters which will be subject to ministerial order are matters relating to points which can undergo changes as time goes on and in respect of which circumstances will have changed, and therefore it would mean that if we were to write all and everything into the Act instead of a statutory instrument, in fact we would likely find that we would be back here in six months or every year to change it and bring it up to date. There are, however, some laws which can usefully and without any danger to anybody be carried out quite as well by ministerial order.

Senator L'Estrange mentioned many things, but it will become evident that they do not all add up to the same conclusion; but again I am not blaming Senator L'Estrange for that. I have come to expect it. He mentioned that, under a foreign Government, our rates contribution was £11 million and that they have now risen to £25 million.

I never said that. I said that the entire cost of Government in this country has risen.

All right. That was the inference which I would have drawn from what was said later by the Senator on these increases from £11 million to £25 million, regardless of whether it is for local authority affairs or the whole country. I take his view that he is taking the whole country in these figures, and we must draw a certain conclusion from these rising figures, that the rise would indicate over-borrowing and over-spending.

I said that we wanted to be careful. That is all I say.

Well, we are being very careful. What I want to point out is that when we relate these figures to other figures given by the Senator, we see a picture which I have taken up in a manner disputed by the Senator and from which I cannot be blamed for drawing a comparison between the £11 million and £25 million for running the country. Then he went on to say that the farmers' income was ten per cent. higher in 1957 than it is to-day and that rates have gone up, while income has come down. I cannot quite get the point of the Senator's argument except to say this, that the inference that may be drawn from all he has said, if any inference can be drawn, is that the more that is spent by local authorities, the less it costs in general taxation. Here is a rather strange situation. In 1939 —without going back too far—of the total receipts of local authorities on Revenue Account, receipts from rates exceeded by 33½ per cent. receipts by way of grant from the Central Fund, excluding other receipts. In other words, excluding other receipts, it would have been 57 per cent. rates contribution towards the cost of our local authority services and spending, with 43 per cent. from Government sources, whereas to-day instead of its being to the disadvantage of the local authorities, eight per cent. more is paid by way of grants from the central Exchequer towards local authority costs than is now paid out of the rates. The percentages of the aggregate to-day are 52 to 48 as against 43 to 57 going back just 20 years.

Is the Health Act in that? The answer is as clear as a bell.

We heard talk here to-day and inferences drawn by various speakers that we kept shoving these things on to the burden of the local ratepayer in order to relieve the central Exchequer because the Government are responsible for finding the money to fund the central Exchequer. The facts are that instead of 43 per cent. of the local authorities' net costs being paid as was the case in 1939, the position to-day is that up to 54 per cent. of these costs are subscribed out of the Central Fund. That entirely belies the assertions made here that the Government keeps shoving costs on to the local ratepayers in order to relieve the central Exchequer.

And the Health Act costs which were supposed to be 2/- in the £ are now 10/-. Does that belie it? The Minister for Finance told us it would not cost more than 2/-. His own words are there.

Take your tranquilliser now.

At the expense of the poor—the economy of the miser.

We should now adjourn for tea.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If the Minister were allowed to finish, we could adjourn for tea.

Senator L'Estrange gave figures which, when challenged, do not mean what they appear to mean. There was a suggestion that we added to the burden of the local rates and, at the same time, relieved the taxation burden and furthermore that the Government of to-day are bringing in this new measure in order to court popularity and get the ratepayers to pay for it. The figures I have given show clearly that the burden on the central Exchequer is not being lessened.

Is it being increased?

The Senator further seems to think that we should have lowered interest rates. Would he again tell me where it is to be funded?

I said that perhaps the banks——

The banks? The banks could dig it up in their backyards, of course.

You robbed them at one time and you should know— I do not.

On a point of order, is it in order for the Senator to allege in this House that someone robbed the banks?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is not in order.

Whether the Senator alleges it or not does not much matter, because if as much weight is to be given to that suggestion as is given to other views of the Senator, no one will believe him. However, the Senator said that we should lower interest rates— we are now told that the banks could do it—and that we should curb borrowing. Then he goes on to say that borrowing will be increased under this Bill. I simply do not know what he meant. Perhaps we shall find out from the Senator at a later stage, since he has disputed my interpretation of what he said, what in fact he did intend to say and perhaps we shall get a clear picture as to whether or not we should cut off the services which are being enjoyed by a number of people to-day, such as improvement of our roads, building houses, improving and reconstructing houses or farm buildings, water schemes, sewerage schemes and so on and are we to stand still and say: "Those who have the services at the moment being paid for by all the people are the only people who will have them?"

If that is so, there should be a realistic approach to borrowing by local authorities for the purpose of improving the services to more people so that all the people in their functional areas may enjoy the same facilities at the same cost rather than as is the case at the moment, that some of the people should have those services at the expense of others. That is the situation. If we are to cease borrowing, to close down, and not to add to the debt of our local authorities for essential purposes—if we are to follow that line of restrictive conservatism—then we are saying: "We do not want any better or any more services for any more of our people and those who have not got them will have to do without them." Those who maintain the view that there should be a hold up in regard to borrowing are saying that, whether they like it or not.

(Interruptions.)

Does the Minister agree that the Health Act put 50 per cent. on the rates? That is the question—answer it.

There are wise people who not long ago went into print in regard to the proposed water scheme for this country and said that it would cost too much and they gave figures and their estimates and calculations were far away from the figure given by the Minister for Finance which has been trotted out here.

Will the Minister answer the question? Does he think it fair that the Health Act should put a 50 per cent. increase on the rates?

If the Senator wants to go into the figures with regard to the Health Act, I can assure him we will spend a long and tedious few days, but if he diligently examines the figures, he will not feel so complacent in condemning or criticising the Minister who brought in the Health Act or the Minister who made the statements which he now derides.

Say "Yes" or "No."

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This discussion is completely irrelevant.

(Interruptions.)

Senator Donegan and Senator L'Estrange should be on the B.B.C. programme Question and Answer.

An Leas-Chathlaoirleach

This whole discussion is out of order.

I shall finish by saying that it is quite obvious that if we get this Stage this evening, we shall be doing very well and my hopes of getting the other Stages now are not bright. This is a Bill which can be better dealt with on Committee Stage than on Second Reading. There must be certain aspects on which I have not replied but we shall have an ample opportunity on Committee Stage to have all the details debated satisfactorily and I think that in the end it will be seen that there is nothing in the Bill which this House may fear despite some of the views expressed here to-day. It is, as I said, an effort to bring into uniformity certain portions of our law as they exist, to reduce the cumbersome details that have applied to some of our procedures in the past, and all in all to make for a better, more simplified law in regard to land acquisition and borrowing in future.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, December 7th.
Business suspended at 6.12 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Top
Share