Deputy Johnson desires to propose a further amendment. The motion before the Committee last night was that the section, as amended, be agreed to. Deputy Johnson is to propose his amendment, and we had better take his amendment first and then resume consideration of the motion.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1924.—FROM THE SEANAD (RESUMED.—AMENDMENT 90).
I move:—
In sub-section (1) (a) to delete the figures "1920" and "1927" and substitute the figures "1925" and "1930" respectively.
I want to bring the criticism of this Seanad amendment down to a definite issue and to make it clear to the Dáil that the main opposition to the Seanad amendment is to the proposal to remit two-thirds of the valuation, so far as rate-levying purposes are concerned, on buildings erected since 1920, and to allow to stand, as far as this amendment goes, the provisions of the Seanad amendment in so far as prospective building is affected. Whatever argument was adduced yesterday, it was in favour of this Seanad amendment because of its effect in stimulating building trades. If this amendment is accepted and the original Seanad amendment passed as amended such a stimulus as was put forward as an argument will still remain. As I said yesterday, to offer inducements to-day in the way of the remission of two-thirds of the rates on buildings that were erected in 1921, 1922 and 1923, is not going to stimulate rebuilding of these establishments or any other buildings.
I intend to ask the House to agree, at any rate, that the argument for stimulating building henceforth will not affect building that has already been concluded. The Seanad amendment gives a concession in rates to three classes of new or improved buildings. First, it gives concessions to buildings destroyed in 1916. These will be exempted from revaluation until 1929, and the Seanad proposes that when the valuation is brought up to date in 1929, that the occupier for a period of four years shall only pay one-third of the rates until 1933. Then there is the second class affecting buildings destroyed and compensated for in Dublin under the Dublin Reconstruction Act. These are exempt from revaluation until 1930, and although the new buildings may be greatly improved and be more valuable, still the occupiers will pay the old valuation. The Seanad amendment proposes that in 1930 when the valuation is brought up to date, that for three years longer the occupier shall pay only one-third of the rates. Then there is the third class, for buildings valued in the ordinary way at present, or buildings improved by being rebuilt. The Seanad amendment proposes that occupiers are to pay only one-third of the rates from 1926 until 1933—a period of seven years. But this is the point I want to emphasise: that the Seanad amendment covers buildings which were begun at any time after the 1st April, 1920. Since that date the only buildings, speaking generally, that have been erected have been houses built by the local authorities under the Housing Acts. These are not benefited by the Seanad amendment at all, and the houses built by private persons without remission of rates under the Building Facilities Acts get no benefit. I have dealt with houses built by private persons without the remission of rates under the Building Facilities Act, and houses built by private persons under the British Housing Acts —particularly the Acts of the British Soldiers Settlements. Though possibly there may be here and there houses that do not come in under any of the preceding categories, in a general way, it may be said that no other houses than those I have enumerated will come into benefit under that Seanad amendment.
That is, the main class of buildings which are affected will be offices, shops, factories. And I want to direct attention to the class of buildings, apart from the houses which have been erected since 1920 up to date. They are mainly banks, here and there a factory, such as the Tobacco Combine Factories in Dublin, some offices and cinema theatres. It is proposed that these establishments are to get a remission of two-thirds of the valuation for the period of years, and that all establishments of that kind that were erected since 1920 will be brought into benefit.
The suggestion in the amendment I am moving is, as I have said, to allow the Seanad amendment to pass in so far as it may be related to future buildings, but not to give that benefit to buildings which have been already erected. The existing businesses which have not been able, by virtue of their shortage of funds, not being as wealthy —existing firms in business of one kind or another—are, I suggest, going to be detrimentally affected by the provisions of this amendment which the Seanad has inserted. The subsidy that is to be paid is to be paid out of the rates. Bear in mind that this proposal is to be mandatory upon the local authorities. It is not a gift from the Central Fund. It is not a suggestion from the Minister of Finance, for instance, that he will raise sufficient taxation in future years to allow this remission, but it is an imposition upon the local authorities that we are asked to agree to. The stimulus for building for the future, which is desired, will be just as effective if my amendment is inserted as it can possibly be under the amendment as put forward by the Seanad. No difference whatever will apply if my amendment is accepted, and while realising that some of the arguments I have used would apply against the amendment as a whole, I ask the House to amend the Seanad amendment so as to, at least, remove one of the grievances which the public will have, if the Dáil, in its generosity, gives other people's money away for the benefit of a few private, and especially favoured, business institutions.
I am not sure whether the Deputy concerned himself very much with the effect of this amendment when putting it down. It is proposed in the amendment to delete the figures "1920" and "1927," and to substitute the figures "1925" and "1930." 1930 is the thing that I want to draw particular attention to just at the moment. The proposal, as far as this particular section is concerned, is with a view to stimulating building during the next year or two. Deputy Johnson is going beyond that. If my recollection is quite correct, I should say that ex-Deputy O'Brien and, I think, Deputy Morrissey, on some occasions asked us what we were going to do in respect of the persons who were getting awards under the Shaw or Wood-Renton Commission as regards starting work. Deputy Johnson is going to give them a lease from 1925 to 1930. Now, that is, in the first place, a weakness in his amendment. I think Deputy Johnson will admit that himself. It is a weakness in the amendment and an infirmity of the first order and a case for it has not been made by the Deputy in his statement just now. He made no case for changing that particular date, and I do not see any case for it. What it really amounts to is this: that if they do not build up to 1927 they can continue on until 1930, and they will still get the benefit. We want to bring it to a date. It is advisable to do so. Decrees are at present being given in various courts throughout the country. They have been given already as far as the Wood-Renton Commission is concerned, in the majority of cases. There are some not yet heard, in respect of which it is reasonable that some allowance should be made, but in the cases that have been heard, no case has been made by the Deputy for that particular change.
As regards the other change, the change from 1920, yesterday we heard, I think, from the other side of the House many reasons why dwelling-houses built since 1920 should be exempt. Nobody criticised that at any rate. On looking up the discussion that took place on the 1st July, 1924, on the Dublin Reconstruction Bill, I find that Deputy Johnson was not satisfied with the extension made by the Seanad in adding two years to the number of years which premises destroyed in Dublin would run at their own valuation. There is a difference between the old valuation running for a particular time, and the new valuation being varied as is recommended by this section. It is one thing to say that the valuations of any premises destroyed during the last couple of years would remain as they were, and it is another thing to say that the new valuations which will be put upon them by the Valuation Office would pay rates only to the extent of 33? per cent. One case has come under my notice in which the former valuation of premises was £75, and the new valuation is £300. In that particular case it is a fallacy to say that the local authority is losing money. The local authority's disbursements in connection with that particular institution are exactly the same as when the valuation was £75 and now when it is £300. The advantage that would be derived by the owner or the owners or the company is simply that they would continue to pay 33? per cent. on the higher valuation in rates up to 1933, and after that they would pay the full rates on the higher valuation.
On the discussion which took place on the Seanad recommendation to the Dublin Reconstruction Bill on the 1st July, 1924, Deputy Johnson asked this question on the statement I made in support of the Seanad recommendation: "Would the President agree that the same conditions should apply to the valuation of any reconstructed building anywhere as well as in Dublin?" It is a very safe question, but it postulates a different trend of thought operating on the mind of the Deputy at that time to that operating on his mind at present. Apparently he was interested in reconstruction developments at that time, and apparently he had in his mind places outside of Dublin. Without this amendment, any houses destroyed and rebuilt since 1920— some, it will be admitted, have been rebuilt in places like Balbriggan and Knockcroghery—would not be included in a Dublin Reconstruction Bill or in any Reconstruction Bill, and they are all certainly entitled to consideration. I recollect that once a very high church dignitary from another State called on me and explained that the sums awarded by the Wood-Renton or Shaw Commission were insufficient for the particular district in which he was born, and if the amounts awarded were insufficient he claimed that some special consideration should be given to them. Thatched houses were destroyed and slated houses or a better class house replaced them. The fact is that the thatched house was valued at probably £1 or £2 per annum, while the house that replaced it was valued at from £7 to £10.
In addition to having to put up a very considerable sum over and above the sum awarded to them, these people are to be saddled in the future with a very much higher rate, and while I admit that people may possibly be brought into this net who do not need it and who do not require this particular assistance, it is something, at any rate, that some sort of consideration should be given to them for having given employment at a time when costs were high and when stability was not so well assured as it is now, and at a time, too, when we had many representations from the other side of the House asking that money should be given towards the relief of unemployment. These people rendered that particular aid at that particular time. Even this, as it stands with the amendment suggested by Deputy Johnson, will not affect some of these particular institutions to which objection is taken, as regards getting this particular relief. They will not get the relief because the premises are not yet completed, and they will not be valued until they are completed.
I know that a circular has been issued in this connection. I am quite satisfied that refusing this particular advantage will not operate against the older Irish industry and that it is a case in which it looks as if we had set out specially to benefit institutions coming in here which interfere with the older Irish institutions. It was never our intention to do anything of the sort. We do say that, in special circumstances, and at a time when prices are high and the costs of building are uneconomic, something has to be done to bridge the difference. That is the time when special consideration should be given to these people, because the local authority loses relatively nothing. Even if it should happen that there have been banks put up, let us say four or five in a particular county, these add to the valuation in that particular district, and the costs of the administration of the local authority in that area are not proportionately increased by reason of the construction of these banks.
As regards the Soldiers and Sailors Act, it was in mind to exclude these houses from the operation of this particular section. A good case could be made out for not excluding them—an excellent case. It is not our money.
Does the President say that the Seanad meant to exclude them?
I cannot say. That would be a rather difficult question for me to answer.
This amendment has come from the Seanad, I take it.
Yes, I take it that it has. It has every appearance of having arrived from them.
You have taken it pretty well under your wing since it came from them.
Perhaps.
Not perhaps.
I would be rather glad to father it. I had an excellent intimation from the Deputy's side of the House that it should be done.
Does the President interpret a question of that kind as an appeal?
From the Deputy, I certainly did, and I spent many hours and many days in trying to see in what way it could be done. There may be many difficulties in the way. First of all, there is the question of valuation. We could not interfere with valuations, and there were many reasons why. The next question was how to give relief in such a way as that the ordinary valuation would not be interfered with. This appeared to be the best way. Possibly by the time the relief mentioned in this Bill runs out, there will be a revaluation of the entire country. There are two disadvantages at the present moment with regard to any person who has built within the last few years. One is that there is bound to be a revaluation, and that the revaluation is not based on the valuation of the houses in the immediate neighbourhood but on the particular reconstructed house, and that the new house, although valued on the 1914 basis, bears no relation to the valuation of similar institutions around it. That is as regards point number one. With regard to the second point, as to cost, it will be admitted that costs now do not bear any relation to the pre-war costs, and for these two reasons there is really no case made for the amendment moved by Deputy Johnson.
One aspect of the question that I would like to draw attention to is this: Deputy Johnson proposes in his amendment to the Seanad amendment that no relief should be given to a building owner who built prior to 1925. In other words, that the building owner who built in 1921 is to be handicapped to a very serious extent. It will be admitted from the discussions that took place in the House, that a building owner who built in 1921 had to pay for his building over 25 per cent., if not more, than the building owner who built the same class of building in 1925. That is a burden of 25 per cent. additional capital on the business carried on in that establishment. Now, what is the proposal? It is that the building which is to be put up in 1925, that is, when 25 per cent. less burden of capital is carried, should be free of 66 per cent. of the rates, and that the other building, put up in 1921, with the heavier capital, should carry the whole burden of the rates. The thing is so obvious that it needs no argument, and if the proposal is to apply to one building, then, certainly in the interests of the trading community, I would urge that it should be extended back to those who took their courage in both hands at a period when things looked exceedingly black in 1921 and 1922.
The forcible manner in which the President deals with this amendment of Deputy Johnson, and the one that comes from the Seanad, leads me to believe that the Government prompted the amendment in the Seanad. He starts off by dealing with what he considers to be the infirmity in Deputy Johnson's amendment. I am prepared to admit that that is an infirmity from the point of view he has put forward, that is to say, it might refer to building by people who got compensation to rebuild places destroyed during the troubled times. He says in dealing with that argument that the people who built during those years deserve consideration for having given employment. Does he suggest seriously to this House that the various banks in this country built during the last two or three years in order to give employment? Does not everyone know that the last thing a bank thinks of doing is spending money unless it has to? Does he suggest that the tobacco combines that came over here during the last three years came for the purpose of giving employment? Does he not know that it was because of the tariffs that were put on, and that if it were not in the interests of business they would not come over? They have a decided advantage over businesses here which have Irish capital and which have been struggling for the last two or three years to establish a trade.
As far as I am concerned, I would suggest to Deputy Johnson that he should change in his amendment 1930 to 1927, and that would remove any serious arguments put forward by the President against this amendment. If the President is prepared to accept proposals which would enable this amendment to be passed without discrimination against any person or body of persons in the State, I would accept. I do not think the terms of the amendment are fair to everybody. As I said yesterday evening, capitalists in the country will reap the advantage of the amendment, and ordinary tenants will not. I would ask the President, when speaking, to think of somewhere else than Dublin. He always paints a picture of Dublin in giving illustrations. Different circumstances prevail through the country, and an analogy with Dublin will not serve any useful purpose as far as this amendment is concerned.
This advantage will be reaped by people in the country generally, and that was the intention of it, as I explained in an answer to the Deputy's leader. When the late General Collins and myself called on the directors of one of the principal banking institutions in this country early in 1922, I suggested to the chairman of that bank that he should make it a point in his speech when the accounts were going to be presented to the shareholders to recommend business people to extend their business and to go on with any reconstruction work that was required. I do not know whether that had the desired effect with regard to the bank itself, but apparently, from what I hear from the opposition, it had.
Has the President no evidence as to whether they carried out the suggestion?
I did not examine the matter.
I am not sure that I was able to follow the reasoning of the President when he said that there was an infirmity in Deputy Johnson's amendment. Nevertheless, I think, although I was not able to follow all his reasoning, that it was a correct conclusion. As far as I can see, the period is divisible into two sections, 1922 to 1925, and 1925 to 1927. It is only the latter section that is strictly comparable with Deputy Johnson's amendment. Deputy Johnson's amendment takes it from 1925 to 1930, whereas that particular half—I will come to the other half later—of the Seanad amendment takes it from 1925 to 1927. Deputy Corish was quick enough to see the weakness of "1930," because he recommended his leader to bring that date back to 1927. 1927 as the ultimate date is a much wiser date than 1930. Therefore, we are only left with the other half of the Seanad's amendment; that is from 1920 to 1925. If it is agreed that certain benefits shall be given from 1925 to 1927, Deputy Johnson's argument is, why extend it back to 1920? I, as one against this amendment and for the Seanad amendment, justified it in my mind on the lines Deputy Good has more or less mentioned, not as a question of policy but as a question of equity.
Let us have equity.
If it be right, and it is agreed by Deputy Johnson as being right, to make this remission from now until 1927, when prices and costs are lower than they have been for the previous five years, then it is surely desirable and equitable that the same remission should be made available for persons who took their courage in their hands and incurred certain risks during the past five years. Unnecessary stress has been laid on certain glaring instances. We have heard about the banks and tobacco companies in the country. If the total of persons likely to get benefit from 1920 to 1925 under the provisions of the Seanad amendment were to be set down, it will be found that these particular instances that have been put forward for attention would only be a small percentage of the whole. We have not the figures available, but we are more or less acquainted with the kind of building construction that has been going on for the last five years, and I think the case has been dropped practically by Deputy Corish for making 1927-1930. That half of it can hardly be justified. There only remains the other half, from 1920 to 1925, and the case there, as it appeals to my mind, is not a question of policy, as in the other half, but a question of equity, of common fairness and justice. On those grounds, I disagree with the amendment of Deputy Johnson, and will support the amendment sent down by the Seanad.
The people who built in 1920 had no promise from the Government that there would be any remission of rates on their buildings. I would like to point out how this remission is going to affect the ratepayers in Mayo. The number of houses built in 1920 in Mayo which this measure will apply to is about 900. The valuation for rating purposes is £13,500. An average of 10/- in the rates would be £6,750, and the remission would amount to £4,550. Who will have to bear that? The poorest ratepayers of the country. I submit that we should not agree with the Seanad amendment.
The President's argument and Deputy Good's argument ran on the line that, at a time of high prices and stress, certain wealthy firms were induced to enter upon building operations—that is to say, were induced to spend capital in putting up buildings. Because they were willing to follow the advice which the President suggested had been given for the purpose of stimulating industry—and, incidentally, suiting their own requirements—they put up buildings at a time of high prices, and—the argument runs —as prices of building have now come down, those firms would be handicapped against competitors who now commence to spend capital for the promotion and development of their business. But there were urgings upon other firms to extend their businesses. There were urgings upon farmers to undertake tillage and other businessmen were prompted and urged to continue their operations and to invest capital, not in buildings, but in machinery. Firms who invested capital in that way are in exactly the same position as firms which invested their capital in building. There is no suggestion that any relief, parallel with the relief proposed here, should be given to those people. I do not know why. So far as there is any validity in the argument, it applies equally well to any other class of business man who invested capital when prices were high, and who is in the position of competing with another business man in the same line who now begins to purchase machinery or undertake operations in the development of his business, apart from the erection of a new building.
As I said last night, there were many other risks undertaken. Many people, as well as bank and cinema proprietors, carried on against great odds during those years. There is no suggestion that they should be subsidised to meet their abnormal expenditure. I do not know whether Deputy Good has been captured, or whether other Deputies have been captured, by the argument that has been so insistently put forward—Deputy Figgis, I know, has from his own confession, been captured— that income tax is not borne by the payer, but is passed on to the consumer. If there are such Deputies in the House, I would suggest that they ought not to stand by the Seanad proposal, because the extra valuation will be passed on, so that the actual payer will not bear the burden, but will pass it on to the buyer of the commodity.
Has Deputy Johnson been converted to that point of view?
My view is in flat contradiction of it, but I know that certain Deputies do hold that view, and I want to appeal to the logical faculty in them and urge upon them, in consequence, that they should vote for the amendment. Apart from that, I say that the proposition to impose by law upon county, urban and borough councils, the obligation to remit two-thirds of the valuation for a period of years, so as to save rich corporations from the obligation to pay two-thirds of their lawful rate, is not one that the Dáil should accept.
I am in general agreement with the spirit of this amendment, but I must confess that I do not agree with the retrospective clause. The people who built in 1920, and for a short time afterwards, had no guarantee whatever that they were going to get any concession in their valuation, and they were willing to undertake this building enterprise without any such guarantee. They knew exactly what they were facing. It seems to me that if it is the desire to give a stimulus to building, it would be reasonable to give a concession to people who are going to build from now on, but I am quite at a loss to understand why the Committee should give a concession to people for acts which they have already performed. Notwithstanding the arguments of the President and the other Deputies, I cannot understand that. It does not seem to me to be fair or reasonable. I would agree with the suggestion made by Deputy Corish, that the time-extension in Deputy Johnson's amendment is rather long. I think it would be better to shorten the time. Of course, one has to remember that buildings begun, say, in the middle of 1926 will not be completed before 1927, but allowing for all that, I think that if the words "from 1925 to 1927" were inserted instead of "from 1925 to 1930," the amendment would be rather improved.
I am agreeable.
Following Deputy Egan, I dislike the retrospective legislation embodied in the amendment. I believe the arguments of Deputy Johnson in this matter are not quite sound. The opposition to the amendment have made a star turn of the banks, the cinemas and the tobacco factories. If these were the only concerns affected in this matter of relief of valuation, I do not think the amendment would be entertained at all. It is perfectly obvious that these people put up their buildings without having any idea that legislation would be passed to relieve them of some of their responsibilities in connection with rating. Legislation on those lines would never have come before the Dáil. But the proposal here is to give relief for any buildings that were erected during this period, and the unanswerable argument in favour of it is that confidence in the legislation of the State is involved.
The proposal to urge on new buildings by holding out the inducement of a relief of rates makes it imperative on this House to do justice to people who have done likewise at a period in which it was much more difficult to face expenditure than it is to-day. That is the essence of the whole matter. Supposing you legislate to-day on the lines of giving relief from rates on any building erected in the year 1925 or at a later stage, does it not appear to you that a real grievance would be in the minds of people who put up buildings in the year 1922 under much more difficult circumstances? The grievance would be real, inasmuch as they have done something that was at the time even of more importance than anything that people who propose to build to-day can do. To leave them in a position to bear the whole brunt and burden of erecting these buildings at a very expensive time would not, in my judgment, in the face of legislation to relieve people now putting up buildings, be fair. I make no special plea for banks, tobacco factories, or cinemas. I think Deputy Johnson was right in saying that so far as some of these things are concerned they stand in a somewhat different light to ordinary buildings, but not so much as to justify this proposal.
Very few buildings of any character have been erected except houses, and they are already covered.
All factories erected during the period are covered in this amendment, and any real expenditure on those lines is covered by this clause. Deputy Johnson makes a comparison. He says that people expended capital money in other directions at grave risk and great depreciation. We know that that is so, and if a Bill were brought in on similar lines for people who were going to expend capital in that way, I say that you cannot ignore people who acted similarly between 1920 and 1925. There is, however, no such proposal before the Dáil, nor is there likely to be. Therefore, in putting forward that argument, I think Deputy Johnson was straining the point. We have a proposal to give relief on buildings going up, and on these grounds there is an unanswerable claim in justice, that people who have acted already in the immediate past should get some relief.
I propose to vote for Deputy Johnson's amendment, and I wish to give my reasons for doing so. I dislike utterly the retrospective effect of the Seanad amendment. If a Bill were introduced here declaring a particular line of conduct and offence, and proposing to impose penalties, there would be an outcry if we said that the effects of that Bill shall date as from January last. Not, of course, to the same extent, but it is merely a question of degree. The principle is very much the same, inasmuch as it is now proposed that the benefits of legislation shall be retroactive. I am quite fully impressed by the line of argument which says that these people built without any such inducement, they built for their own good reasons, they did not build from philanthropic motives, but for their personal convenience, or in the hope of doing better, or doing a more flourishing business. To say now, because we deem it advisable to give a fillip to building, because we think it is a good thing, as, no doubt, it is a good thing, to ensure that the maximum activity in the building trade shall take place within the next two or three years, we are going to go back and benefit people gratuitously who built in 1920, is saying something to which I could not subscribe.
Transfer it from building for a moment. The Government, through the county committees of agriculture, are subsidising this year the growing of sugar beet, because the question of whether or not sugar beet can be profitably grown in this country is one that it is thought desirable to explore. People have been growing sugar beet in this country on a small experimental scale in the past. Are they to come along and say: "We notice you are subsidising the growing of sugar beet this year through the county committees of agriculture; we have grown sugar beet since 1910 and have grown so many acres, and we think that in equity and abstract justice we are entitled to a hand-over for that; we were enterprising, we were patriotic in growing so many acres of sugar beet, and we want that subsidy to be retrospective." We would scout it. So on, with other kinds of legislation we may deem it advisable to introduce, conferring benefits, granting bonuses or favours of one kind or another. Are we to accept the principle and lay down the precedent that when we confer a favour or benefit, or give something in the nature of a bonus for a particular line of action, we are going to go back and confer that on people who took that line of action in the past, without any such inducement, and who took it for their own reasons? I have listened attentively to this discussion both to-day and last night, and my mind runs entirely with those who are standing against the retrospective effect of the Seanad amendment.
I think we all have considerable sympathy with the views expressed by Deputy Johnson and the Minister for Justice on this point, but I do not think that the growing of beet-root furnished a parallel to the issue in this case. Beet-root is a very fragile thing; it only lasts for one season and, when the crop is saved, we hear no more about it.
It does not pay any rates.
A building is permanent, and lasts a considerable time. We must take into consideration the fact that by introducing this legislation we are, to some extent, putting those people who came forward, took their courage in their hands, and built at a time when, as Deputy Good has pointed out, the cost of building was about 25 per cent. higher than it is now, and when the valuation of buildings was about three times higher than the valuation of buildings constructed in 1914 and before that, in the same position as those who build now. We are in this position now, that we are giving an abatement of rates for the building of factories, business houses and other kinds of structure in opposition to those houses that were built between 1920 and 1925, thereby putting them in a much better position from the competitive standpoint. I think it is not a fair thing to give people who are building houses now an unfair advantage over people who built at a time when it took more courage, more civic spirit, than at the present time. We should be equitable in a matter of this kind and, although it is in some respects retrospective, and although there is objection, there is a very big difference in being retrospective in regard to something dealing with the present rights of individuals and in regard to something which deals with their rights in the past. For that reason I think the Dáil should reject this amendment.
I wonder if Deputy Johnson and the Minister for Justice would go to Balbriggan and explain to the people there the justice of the amendment. I wonder what sort of a reception they would get from the people whose premises were burned in 1920. The citizens of Dublin whose premises were burned in the operations that took place here in 1922, are getting an advantage, but the constituents of these gentlemen in Balbriggan are not to get that advantage. That seems to me peculiar equity and a peculiar way of doing justice.
I am rather glad that the Minister for Justice took the beet root example. I would call it a radical illustration; going to the root of things. Supposing somebody had started a sugar-beet factory in 1920, and for the last five years had been conducting it somewhere near the margin of subsistence, what would have been the result? The business was being conducted from 1920 to 1925 in the teeth of adverse circumstances and at great risk, and if there were profits they would not be very considerable. In 1925 the State decided to take on the development of a sugar-beet industry. The State endows that industry and says, "From now to 1930 every person who starts a sugar-beet industry will be helped by the State." Is it not obvious that persons who were conducting that industry from 1920 to 1925 would say, "You are giving in circumstances more fortunate for the development of this industry, and is it not fair and equitable that that assistance should be extended to us, who took it up under worse conditions, now that you have decided to make it a State-endowed industry"? The Minister for Justice knew very well the danger of the example he was choosing. What did he do? He asked if we would go back and help the sugar-beet industry from 1910. Of course we would not. Why did the Minister choose 1910? The year 1920 was the peak year of high prices, and those persons who came along at that time might have grounds for expecting help from the State.
As far as I was concerned, the Seanad amendment in respect of the retrospective clauses had no justification on grounds of strict policy, simply because you cannot encourage houses to be built that are already built. There is a case in equity and in common justice. I thought also of the particular example that the President gave. There are other cases of this sort. We talk of banks, cinemas, and tobacco factories, but, as I said before, and repeat now, they are not the only type of businesses. There are businesses known to Deputies, and the Balbriggan industry is only one, where risks were undertaken. If relief is going to be given for the next two years, then these people have a right to come forward and say that if assistance is given as part of the State policy, because of the conditions of the time, let that benefit prevail over the whole period during which these conditions existed. As the Minister for Justice stated—only to the opposite conclusion which he drew—if they were about to get State assistance and endowment for any particular industry for the next two, five, or fifteen years, those who had taken the risk in the preceding five years would be justified in making a case. In justice, the same benefit ought to be extended to them.
It has been stressed that 1920 was the year of high prices. I was going to ask why 1920 until I heard Deputy Figgis give the reason. I was going to ask why not follow what the Minister for Justice said with regard to sugar-beet growing and make this retrospective to 1910. It is the same case. The year 1920 was a year of high prices, and that is the reason why we should not pass these retrospective clauses, because it was out of the high profits that were made in that year that most of these buildings were erected, and it was because these huge corporations were making tremendous profits in or about 1920 that they put up these buildings. We know very well that that was the reason. They dodged the Excess Profits Tax or the Super Tax by extending their businesses and putting up new buildings. Does the President suggest that any struggling manufacturers built new premises or extended their existing premises since 1920?
I do. The I.A.W.S. is a case in point.
That is one, as against the many that were built by the richest corporations in the country.
Recite them.
They have been recited time out of number. I put it to the President that he cannot make a case for it. I do not want to dwell too much on this, but why should this relief be given to the banks, the tobacco factories and the other people who made tremendous profits during that year, who put up these buildings for their own benefit and for the benefit of their businesses, not as the President would suggest, to relieve unemployment, not for the good of the country, as the President did suggest, and not because they had any greater confidence in the country. They were taking no risks at all, but even if they were, they took them with their eyes open, and, as has been pointed out, they took them without thinking for a moment that the Government would reward them five or six years afterwards. I think that it is preposterous to ask the ratepayers to subsidise this class of people. That is what it amounts to, and I find it all the more strange that the proposal comes from the President and the Minister for Local Government, who are crying out day after day to the local authorities that they must reduce the burden of rates, that the people are paying too much rates, that they must give less outdoor relief, that people must be left as they are at present, some of them almost on the verge of starvation, in order to bring down the rates.
I never said that.
The President may not have said it, but that is the net result of the action taken by the Department of Local Government within the last couple of years. The President will not deny that the Department of Local Government sent out a circular to local authorities stating that they should not pay more than 29/- a week for work that was to be done on the roads, and the reason given at the time, as far as I remember, was that the money was Government money; that the best possible return should be got for it, and that no extra burden should be placed on the ratepayers. If this proposal is passed, it will mean an extra burden on the ratepayers.
I am in general agreement with Deputy Johnson's proposal. I am quite opposed to this retrospective clause, particularly when the retrospection is to go so far back as five years. If there is to be retrospection at all, it should only be for a very short period, say six months. A great deal has been said about the erection of the tobacco factories. What would a reduction of rates to these factories mean? They are simply a combine that has tried to stamp out the Irish factories, and that did not succeed. Their factories tried to stamp out the small Irish concerns which still exist, and you propose to subsidise this combine at the expense of the small Irish manufacturers. The President spoke of the comparative valuation, and then two or three sentences later said that valuation for taxation purposes would not take place until 1927. The basis upon which taxation will be imposed in 1927 will be considerably less than the basis of valuation at present. In any case, if there is to be any retrospection in respect of houses— and I presume it is the general view that some aid should be given in the case of house-building—I do not think that the retrospection should be for more than six months. Six months would be quite sufficient, because those people who built within the last five years, as has been said here more than once, had no idea of getting aid from the Government or the ratepayers. Talking of ratepayers' aid, I do not see why the people of Mayo should be compelled to pay £4,000 additional taxation in order to aid those people who put up houses to make a profit, and who, at the time they decided to build, had made very definite calculations as to the profits they could make.
We have heard a great deal in reference to the people who built houses in 1920, and we have been told that the Government should come to their relief. I know as a matter of fact that a great many people who built houses in 1920 have sold them at a huge profit. Does anybody suggest that these houses are of less value to-day than they were two or three years ago? They are not; they have grown more valuable. I know houses in Dun Laoghaire that were built in 1920 for £1,100, and the owners have been selling them for £2,200. Why should the ratepayers in that district be asked to come to the relief of these people?
A house could be built to-day at 25 per cent. less than in 1921.
I desire to say that I wish to support Deputy Johnson's amendment, but without prejudice to the principle, which, in fact, I do not like. In one sense the amendment might be regarded as epoch-making, as it is, perhaps, the first indication of a split in the Government. We have had the Minister for Justice on the one side, and the President on the other. It is the first visible sign that all is not well, but, like wise men, they kept it back.
Might I remind the Deputy that my attitude in the matter is strictly constitutional. The Bill is introduced by an External Minister, and I am as free as the Deputy to vote in any lobby I wish.
Certainly, I am not in the least denying that. I do not like, and I am absolutely opposed to, this principle of retrospection. I do not see why people who built houses in 1920 and in subsequent years have anything to complain of. They went into the thing with their eyes open. They knew no relief was allowed them then, but they went forward with the buildings, and now they must take the consequences. I wonder has it been considered what an amount of labour this would involve for local authorities in making the necessary calculations. Perhaps even extra staffs would be required to deal with the number of fraudulent claims for rebates that would be sent in. I see no machinery whatever in this section for dealing with these cases. It is true that local councils can go back, but it appears to me to be a thing that would lead to great abuse. Fraudulent cases would be put up. These cases would need to be investigated, and it would be a long and costly business for the local council. I submit that no case has been made for the inclusion of this retrospective clause.
Take the ordinary man in business, apart altogether from house building— he had to risk losses, and in many walks of life he sustained great losses, for the last four or five years. Would men who bought land in 1920 get to-day what they paid for it? I doubt it. Would they get 50 per cent. of it? I am perfectly certain they would not, and yet it is asked that men who built houses should be put in a privileged position. That is not fair. I submit that this proposal could, without any rhetoric, be considered an extension of pauperism. Why should that vague and indefinite word "building" be used? If you want to give relief at all it should be confined to dwellings. I have not heard that any of those in business have failed to any great extent. I am not aware of any great failure, and, to the best of my knowledge, even in those difficult times many are making huge profits and adding to their reserves of capital. No case has been made why buildings, such as factories, should be included, or indeed any business concerns, in the scope of this amendment. It should be limited to dwelling-houses, and I would be favourable to that point of view, but I think a remission of two-thirds is excessive. One-third would meet the case very well. If the houses are overvalued, does not the fault lie with the Valuation Office rather than anywhere else? If these buildings were valued on the basis on which houses were valued twelve or thirteen years ago, I do not see why these people could not meet the difference.
When a measure is introduced. I presume in any House in any part of the world, which proposes to confer benefits upon or in any way to mitigate or reduce the burdens upon certain classes of people, you will always have portions of these classes anxious to have it made retrospective. The proposal here is that certain classes of the citizens should be relieved of certain burdens not only in the future but for some years past. To my mind, all forms of legislation which are retrospective open up very difficult channels, and are in themselves almost dangerous. The year 1920 has been fixed upon. From what I gather the only reason that we have not gone back to 1910 is that it is stated that during the years 1920 to 1925 conditions were such as to render the erection of these houses risky and to require a certain amount of courage to bring them into existence, but I confess that I cannot see how this actual date can be justly fixed. It seems to me to be rather arbitrary, and if we are going to make this proposal retrospective I do not see really where we are going to draw the line. It is perfectly true that during this period it was difficult to embark on these ventures, but since then the country has more or less settled down, and the prospect for the people who did so has brightened. We have been told that the reason why this proposal should be made retrospective is because of the risk that was taken and the difficulty of the times. Well, I do not know whether the Minister for Finance, when he is about—as we are told—to propose a reduction of income tax, is going to make that retrospective for the last five years, for really I think the people who managed to pay income tax from 1920 to 1925, plus arrears, were deserving of reduction as much as the people who are going to pay income tax from 1925 onwards. Logically, I think that there is no answer to the principle underlying Deputy Johnson's amendment, namely, that when a proposal is introduced into the Dáil either conferring benefits or lessening the burdens upon certain classes of the people, it should not be retrospective unless special reasons can be given for making it retrospective for the time you are about to make it retrospective. That being so, I shall support Deputy Johnson's amendment.
Two or three points have been raised with which I would like to deal. The President has tried to appeal to the Dáil by referring to destroyed areas. He has contrasted Balbriggan and Dublin, but he did not attempt to introduce any measure to give the same kind of facilities regarding the rating to other parts of the country such as Balbriggan as he did to Dublin. This measure does not pretend to deal only with reconstructed buildings, it is all buildings; and he introduced this question of destroyed areas with a view to appealing to the sentiment of the House. I think this measure is entirely false——
I must object. I was not trying to appeal to the sentiment of the House. I pointed out plainly and distinctly that the people of Balbriggan, whom Deputy Johnson represents, have no other relief except through this section.
That is true. Will the President accept an amendment to make the remission apply to buildings which were erected on the sites of other buildings destroyed during the trouble? Will he confine it to such buildings as these?
There is no such amendment, and I do not think it would be fair.
Then the President has no case in introducing the Balbriggan analogy. The proposition of the Seanad does not deal with houses, shops, banks, factories or other buildings to replace destroyed buildings.
Neither does the Deputy's.
It is not my Bill.
The Deputy is proposing to amend it.
The question has arisen regarding certain buildings which were put up in Balbriggan after the date, 1st April, 1920. What about the buildings that were started on the 1st January, 1920? They are excluded; is there not going to be just as great an injustice if you assist people who started to build after April, 1920, as compared with the men who started before the 1st April, 1920, and finished in 1921?
Personally I would accept an amendment to that effect.
The President now says he would accept an amendment to that effect, although he did not propose such an amendment in the Seanad, and although he did inspire this amendment passed by the Seanad.
The inspiration came from the Deputy.
If there was an inspiration from me it was with regard to destroyed areas.
The Deputy never mentioned it. The word was "reconstructed."
You cannot reconstruct on something that did not exist before. Reconstruction means there was a foundation.
But you can reconstruct without destruction.
If Deputy Johnson is not allowed to proceed without interruption, we will probably think that he is a Minister.
If there is any case at all such as that made by Deputy Good, it is that no remission should be made applicable until there is an equalisation of costs, that is to say, we are told that the buildings in 1920 were at peak prices, and that there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in the cost of building. If 1920 was the peak, then at some period preceding 1920 it was 25 per cent. lower than the peak, that is to say, at the present level. Does Deputy Good or will the President agree to alter this date from the 1st April, 1920, to a sliding scale date? To fix this date as April 1st, 1920, when, we are told, prices were at their peak, is quite useless for this proposition, because the case Deputy Good has made is that a person who is going to build after April 1st, 1925, when prices are 25 per cent. lower than they were at the peak, will have an advantage over the man that built in 1920. The man who built in 1919 is not going to get any advantage. He will be penalised because he has started a month or two earlier than the date in this section. Deputy Good should be quite consistent, and I anticipate, although he has not said it, that he is really opposed to the Seanad amendment as a whole; and if he is prepared to vote against it he might get a good deal of support, but on the question of retrospective action, I claim Deputy Good's vote. A question has been raised as to the extension of the period to 1930. My first idea was to make it 1928. I think that will give three years during which a house, factory, or establishment, or the like, which may be started any time after April, 1925, could be finished. Some Deputies think, and the President suggests, that five years is too long, but I am quite prepared to reduce the period if that would meet with the general acceptance of the House. With the leave of the House, I would suggest to amend 1930 to 1928, which would give a period of three years during which the building might be completed.
Is it proposed to alter the amendment so as to read:—"In sub-section (1) (a) to delete the figures 1920 and 1927 and substitute the figures 1925 and 1928 respectively"?
If the Committee agrees.
The amendment, which is to amendment 90, made in the Seanad, reads: "In sub-section (1) (a) to delete the figures ‘1920 and 1927' and to substitute the figures ‘1925 and 1930' respectively."
I do not agree with the alteration.
Leave is asked to alter the amendment by substituting 1928 for 1930.
I do not agree with that.
Does the President object to the amendment being altered?
I do. If you like you can alter the figures to 1927, but not to 1928.
It is not the President's agreement with the amendment I am asking for; I am asking whether he objects to the amendment being altered so as to be put before the Committee in its altered form.
I object to it being altered, except the alteration embraces the figures 1927, and that was the recommendation of ex-Deputy O'Brien and Deputy Morrissey.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Connor Hogan.
- Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- John T. Nolan.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Donchadh O Guaire.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- William A. Redmond.
Níl
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John J. Cole.
- Sir James Craig.
- Darrell Figgis.
- John Good.
- William Hewat.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Parthólán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Liam Thrift.
Tellers—Tá: Domhnall O Muirgheasa, Tomás de Nógla; Níl: Darrell Figgis, John Good.
Amendment declared carried.
Two amendments have been carried to the Seanad amendment. The question before the Committee is that the section, as amended, be agreed to; that is, the new section, as amended by the Minister and as further amended by the last amendment.
I do not think it is necessary to say anything on this matter now. The whole thing was fully discussed, and I formally move the question.
I understood the original amendment was yesterday before the Dáil and was amended. It has now been further amended. Has not the amended amendment to go before the Dáil, or is it to be considered as passed?
I thought I had said that. Amendment 90, which was a new section inserted by the Seanad, was amended yesterday by the addition of certain words proposed by the Minister. It has now been further amended by the passing of the last amendment.
I quite understand now.
The question now is that the Committee agree with the new section inserted in the Seanad as amended.
Question put and agreed to.
Will you include Balbriggan on Report?
If you propose it, I will give it the most favourable consideration.
Amendment 91.—In section 61 (1), page 29, lines 1-2, the words "save with reference to and sanction of the Minister" deleted.
I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment." I have no desire to exercise those powers, but they were originally inserted, and I would ask the Dáil now to agree to this.
The effect of this amendment is that it is going absolutely to close the door to any employee of one local authority seeking and obtaining representation on any other local authority, whereas as the section left the Dáil it did make that possible in cases where the Minister saw that there was no objection. The case that was made against the proposal to allow a person who happened to be employed under one local authority from seeking and obtaining election to another local authority was opposed because of certain possibilities, but there was an argument used which, I think, the Minister accepted: that one class of Local Government official might be a competent and a valuable acquisition to another Local Government authority. and that there could be no possible objection on the ground, shall I say, of corruption or a danger of corruption. There was a phrase put in the section, or at least passed in the Dáil, which made it possible for such a case to happen where the Minister gave his sanction. I think it is desirable that there should be at least that much elasticity —the possibility, let us say, of an instructor under a technical instruction committee being elected in another district or county as a member of a local authority in that county ought not to be absolutely closed.
took the Chair.
He might be a very valuable member of the local authority, provided the Minister is satisfied that there is no reason to fear corruption or anything approaching corruption. I think there should be that liberty allowed. I think, too, the Seanad is not justified in deleting these words, and that the absolute prohibition, in the case of an employee of a local authority seeking election under another local authority outside his own area, ought not to be conceded, and that where the Minister is satisfied that no possible danger can come of such a proposition he ought still to be allowed to give his sanction. In the form that the Bill left the Dáil, such a possibility still availed, and the Minister might in special circumstances give his sanction. Now we are asked to deprive the Minister of that discretion and absolutely to prohibit the possibility of any public servant of a local authority being elected to any other local authority. I ask the Committee not to agree with this amendment.
I must press for the acceptance of this amendment. The object of the section is to ensure that any man who is a member of a local authority and who leaves it cannot hold any office of profit under that local authority or under the local authority in the adjoining county within 12 months after he has resigned. There was a clause with reference to the sanction to be given by the Minister, but it proposed to give me a power of dispensation which was so invidious that I do not see how I could exercise it without very severe criticism. If I were to make exceptions in the case of particular individuals who came within the general description of the section as having been members of a local authority within the 12 months, and if I dispensed them from the provisions of the section, opponents of one kind or another would be sure to say that I did it from interested motives, and that I was animated by political or personal feelings. It would be a very unfair thing to ask any Minister to administer a section of this kind, and for that reason alone I would ask the Dáil not to force me to accept power which I cannot exercise without placing myself in a very invidious and difficult position.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 92.—Before Section 62 a new section inserted as follows:—
(1) Where after the passing of this Act a local authority passes a resolution either appointing a person to be an officer of that local authority or increasing the salary or emoluments of an officer of that local authority, such resolution—
(a) shall have no effect until such person or officer shall within one month after the date of such resolution have made and subscribed a declaration in accordance with this section, and
(b) shall be wholly void if such person or officer fails to make and subscribe such declaration within such period of one month.
(2) The declaration to be made as aforesaid by such person or officer as aforesaid shall be made and subscribed by him before a Peace Commissioner and shall be in the following form:—
The................................(set out the name of the local authority) having on the....................day of ................................19, passed a resolution appointing me A.B. to the office of ................... (or increasing my salary or emoluments as ........................... as the case may require).
I, the said A.B., do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare that I will bear allegiance to the Irish Free State and its Constitution as by law established, and that, in the event of such appointment being (or whether such increase is or is not as the case may require) confirmed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, I will to the best of my judgment and ability duly and faithfully perform the duties of the (or my as the case may be) said office and will observe and obey such orders and directions in relation to such duties as shall lawfully be given to me.
(3) Nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect the operation of any enactment requiring the sanction or confirmation of any such resolution as aforesaid by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.
I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 92." The object of the amendment is to make it obligatory on officers of local authorities who are appointed after the passing of this Act or who get promotion after its passing, to make a declaration of allegiance to the Free State. This section, I believe, will serve a very useful purpose. It is a very anomalous position to have men in the service of local authorities throughout the country functioning under the authority of the Central Government, who are supposed to be carrying out their duties in the interests of the State, and who, at the same time, are planning and plotting underhand against the stability of the Government. It places the Minister and his Department in a very difficult position to try and deal with people of this kind without having some declaration of this character. It is unfair to the Department in question, and it is unfair to the individuals who get positions under local authorities. It is unfair, too, to the general public that they, the ratepayers, should be subscribing to the support of men who are disloyal to the Government and the Constitution under which they are serving and functioning. Objection has been taken to this on the ground that anyone can take a declaration of this kind and still have a mental reservation to be hostile to the State. There is one thing, at all events, that it will do—it will certainly undermine the influence and the authority of such persons or any influence that they might get from the fact of holding such positions of authority under local bodies.
Many people who, if left in their private capacity, would have very little influence, have considerable influence for good or evil when put into positions of authority as officers of a local body. We are doing what we can to prevent them exercising that influence for evil purposes. I am continually getting letters where, let us say, county surveyors are about to be appointed, to the effect that these men were instrumental in blowing up the bridges and roads, and that they still have the intention of doing the same thing at the first opportunity, and that the ratepayers should not be called upon to pay salaries to such individuals. The same thing is true with regard to rate collectors. Complaint is made that men are appointed rate collectors that have been robbing banks and committing similar depredations, and that these men must not be entrusted with work of this kind.
This places me in a difficult position, and it places the men elected in a difficult position. These complaints may or may not be true. If true, there is no reason why these people should not be made to make a declaration of this kind. In many cases, the complaints may not be true, and may be but the complaints of people who were themselves anxious to get the very positions held by the men against whom they are making complaints. But it will simplify the whole position if a man is given an opportunity of taking this declaration and saying that he is in favour of supporting the Constitution, or, if he is in opposition, that his opposition to the Government will take constitutional form. I think there should be no hesitation on our part—those of us willing to take an oath of a much higher form than this— in supporting the Seanad in its attitude in inserting this amendment, and, accordingly, I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment.
I hope the Dáil will not accept this amendment. It is a rather cowardly and irritating proposal to put before the Dáil. The effect of it is to say to 75 per cent. of the employees of the local authorities: "You may be as disloyal as you like, you may continue your antipathy to the Government and to the Constitution (in the phrase of the Minister), so long as you do not ask for an increase in pay. You can continue to be as disloyal as you like, but once you ask for an increase in pay, then we are going to put it to you that you have got to make this declaration." You are going to have two sections in your staff: one that has made the declaration that they are loyal to the Constitution of the Free State as by law established; and the other, not having made any such declaration because they have not asked or obtained an advance in pay, are going to be put into another class. Now if that is going to make for contentment and satisfaction in local government service, I shall be greatly surprised. I can imagine local authorities having suspicions of a number of persons who may be seeking appointment, or seeking an advance in salary, and duly inviting such persons to make an application or to seek an advance, and then coming along with the test. If those persons refuse to take the oath or declaration they will be immediately branded as disloyal persons. Why a proposal of this kind should be brought forward, except as an irritant, I do not know. It is not going to serve any good purpose. It is not a proposal to call upon every public servant of a municipal authority to make a declaration of the kind. For some reason or other it is only made to apply to new entrants or persons getting an increase in remuneration. That means you have to have two classes in your local government service—the sheep and the goats, the disloyal and those who make the declaration of loyalty. I venture to say the chances are that you will have as big a proportion of rogues and vagabonds amongst those who make the declaration of loyalty as those who refuse to make the declaration. I venture to say you would probably have a bigger proportion, I was going to say of potential thieves, but certainly less strictly honest people, amongst those who make the declaration, than amongst those who refuse or have not been called upon to make it. I think the proposal is simply an irritant and will be of no service. It will not increase respect to the Constitution; it will not add to the number of people that are loyal to the Constitution; it will simply mean you have selected one class of people, a small number of the staff, who will be considered the favourites, the sycophants and the people prepared to bow down as against the rest, who probably will be quite as loyal and determined, but who are not willing to set themselves apart as having sought an increase in remuneration, and paid the price for it, by making such a declaration. The kind of selection that this amendment proposes is, I think, bad, and can do no good either at the present time or in the future, and I ask the Committee to reject it.
On this amendment I take my stand with Deputy Johnson. I think the House should not accept this amendment, not merely because it is irritating at the moment, but because it embodies a principle that is quite unsound. On an earlier occasion I indulged in a certain amount of reminiscence that the Minister for Justice resented.
Oh, no!
Well, he questioned it. On this occasion I will indulge also in a little reminiscence, but I do not think that the Minister for Justice will resent it because it will be well within his recollection.
In 1921, when the Treaty negotiations were proceeding, the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis were meeting, and at that assembly a certain delegate moved a proposal that every employee of a local government body should be called upon to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic. Objection was taken then. I myself formulated the objection, and stated that this oath was an improper one, and that all the local bodies had any right to seek from their servants was, firstly, efficiency, and, secondly, obedience, and that if they got efficiency and obedience it was all they had any right to look for. That particular proposition was at that time aimed at certain county surveyors that were known to be of the type of faith known at the time as "Unionist." Now, it has become still more nebulous and is known as ex-Unionist—whatever that may be. In any case, that is the particular part of those reminiscences of mine to which I draw special attention. In the debate that followed, the person who was then Minister for Local Government—representing the Department and, presumably, speaking for the person who was then Assistant Minister for Local Government, and who is now Minister for Justice—and who is now President, urged the rejection of that resolution, and stated that all the local authority had a right to expect was efficiency and obedience, that outside those it had no right to enforce oaths or testimonies of the kind called for in that resolution and in this amendment.
The Minister for Local Government said a few minutes ago that it was drawn to his attention that certain persons applying for positions as county surveyors had a reputation for having blown up bridges in the past. If a person justly has a reputation for blowing up bridges in the past and applies for a position as county surveyor, that person should be clearly rejected on the grounds of inefficiency and unsuitability, without seeking to get at him with any testimony or oath of this kind. I do not think the principle is sound or right, and I think, as Deputy Johnson pointed out, that this method is not going to succeed in its purpose. We know that dispensations can be issued in regard to matters of this kind by the political chiefs of the parties at which it is intended to be aimed. There are persons who, if they are inclined, as they were in the past, to take action against the State, will not be very greatly moved by the fact that they have been put into the position of making a declaration of this type. It will not achieve its purpose, and I think it introduces an irritating and bad principle. I repeat that the Dáil should not accept this amendment.
I have no wish to give a silent vote on this amendment, but I do not altogether agree with the views put forward by Deputy Johnson. He appears to imagine that 35 or 40 per cent. of the employees of the local authorities, who have been in their positions for a number of years, should be included in this amendment. If they were included, he would be in favour of supporting this amendment. That was what I gathered from his speech.
Of course the Deputy is quite wrong.
If I am wrong Deputy Johnson had a wrong intention when speaking. I ask the Dáil not to go back to the penal times. There have been too many oaths taken in this country. You are taking oaths every day and now you want to go down the country and compel every official, whether of an urban council or county council or any of the committees, to swear allegiance. I am surprised you have not the King mentioned in the oath. I think the Dáil would do better by rejecting than by accepting this amendment. Surely the Government have battered down much greater opposition than the few rate collectors who may be inclined to have their own opinion as to what form of Government they wish to have in the country. I have never encouraged irregularism against any Government selected by the majority of the people. In opposing this amendment I am not advising any person to go against the Government. But I think it is right, if you have a Free State, that the people should be allowed to have their own opinions. There should be at least the freedom of not having to swear allegiance to anyone.
If you have 30 or 40 rate collectors in a county, those will have to swear true faith and allegiance to the local authority as well as the Government. They will have to be brought before a Peace Commissioner. They are in the same position as a civil servant. The British Government, while they were in this country, did not compel the local authorities to swear in their officials when they were appointed. They passed bad laws enough in the country but they did nothing so mean or low as this. It is mean of any Government to ask an official, a man earning his bread by the sweat of his brow, to swear true faith and allegiance. It is bad enough for a man to come here and swear.
I ask the Committee to oppose this amendment. I do not want 75 per cent. of the present officials who may be engaged or who may be looking for an increase in their salary to be compelled to swear. The 25 per cent. who were there before them, according to Deputy Johnson's interpretation of this amendment, can go scot free. Neither the 25 per cent. nor the 75 per cent. should be sworn. An official may have served the local authority for a number of years and be capable of carrying out his duties and if, as a result, some of the members of the local authority think he is entitled to an increase, why should he be asked to take an oath like this? If he were not worthy of the increase, the local authority would not give it to him. The same thing applies to every person employed by the local authorities. I think in a short time you will be asked to make the road workers swear. Everyone will be asked to swear true faith and allegiance. If you cannot go any other way about it than that, you ought to throw your hat at it. This is the most disgraceful thing introduced into this House since I became a member.
The most disgraceful thing introduced into this House since you became a member?
Deputy Magennis has taken me up wrongly. He said the words I used before I sat down were that this is the most disgraceful thing introduced into this House since I became a member. What I meant was that this is the most disgraceful thing introduced into this House while I may have been in it, for the past two or three years.
I desire to add my voice to the voices of those who opposed this amendment. There was a good deal of homely truth in what the last Deputy said—that there are too many oaths in this country. I oppose this amendment chiefly because I do not believe it will do any good. I do not believe it will effect even the object the proposer had in view. The object apparently was and is to secure loyalty to the Constitution. You are not going to secure a genuine loyalty to any constitution or any cause by exacting oaths under duress. What will happen? You may have two or three applicants for a position, and you may find that one of them will refuse to take the oath or declaration and another will be quite prepared to take it. In many cases, it will be found that the man who refuses to subscribe to the declaration is in all respects a man of higher principle than the man who, because it meant something to him, took the declaration with his tongue in his cheek. There is nothing to prevent that happening. You are not going to secure loyalty to the Constitution by endeavouring to get people to make formal declarations of allegiance to it. If there were fewer of these formal declarations and if people in election campaigns forgot to argue about the Treaty and took the Treaty for granted, there would be less talk of disloyalty to the Constitution or to the State.
I do not believe that any good purpose will be served by trying to enforce this declaration. It will be a cause of irritation, and it will be made a source of cheap heroism on the part of some people who will pose as great people, who would be occupying the positions other people were promoted to, if it were not that they were so high-principled that they would not take this declaration. That is the sort of thing that this declaration is going to bring about. It is going to introduce an element of irritation into local affairs, and it would be much wiser for the Government to drop it altogether. It is not going to do any good, and it may do a lot of harm.
I support the amendment. I heard Deputies say that this was a cowardly amendment. I quite disagree with that. It is manly and it is absolutely necessary for the safety of the State. Those who are employed by the State should give faithful service, notwithstanding statements to the contrary. The people elected to the Dáil are elected on the widest franchise that exists perhaps in Europe. We represent the Irish people. The same remark applies to the members of the elected public boards. It is the Irish people who are paying the county surveyors and other officials who will be affected by this amendment, and if these officials are not willing to give faithful service to the people who are paying them, then I say they have no business in that service. It is timely to have a provision which will ensure that those who are employed by the State will give faithful service to the State in every Department. Some jocular remarks were made from the opposite side of the Chamber, and we were told that there will be another row if those people are asked to give faithful service to the people who are paying them.
Will the Deputy say what people?
There is no necessity to speak at length on this amendment. I am absolutely in favour of it.
This amendment is an important one, and I am sorry that the Minister should have adopted it as his own. I do not know exactly the history of its invention in the other House, but I certainly think that the Minister should not have agreed to accept it and sponsor it in this House. The Minister, when about to sit down, made a most unfortunate reference to the oath we are forced to take before taking our seats in this House. He said that surely Deputies who have taken this more serious oath would not object to imposing this declaration on employees of county councils. I think Deputies will fully realise that the fact that we are forced by circumstances to take a certain oath is no reason why we should force those whom we have authority over to take declarations of a similar nature.
Another point in connection with this amendment is the discrimination between the employees of county councils and the Civil Service of the Government. There is no regulation forcing civil servants to make declarations of loyalty every time they get a rise in their salaries. Why this discrimination between persons who have very little influence upon the safety of the State and those in high and responsible positions in Government Buildings who are in a much more powerful position to do damage to the State and to endanger grievously the safety of the State? I think Ministers are aware that there have been instances where very high officials of the State have shown something approaching disloyalty to the State—
May I set the Deputy right on one point. Civil servants do take a declaration of allegiance to the State. It is true, as the Deputy says, that this declaration is not repeated on every occasion on which they get an increase in their salary, but they do make such a declaration. The Deputy may not be aware of that.
Have they all taken it?
Yes.
Even those transferred? Another point in connection with this amendment is that it is copying what has been done in Northern Ireland. There has been a great deal of indignation in the Free State at the way the Northern Government forced persons employed under the Northern Parliament to take this oath of allegiance. Indeed, that is one of the principal grievances of the Nationalists of the Six Counties. Yet we are following the example of Sir James Craig and imposing upon our own local officials a corresponding declaration. If this amendment be passed, I cannot see why our fellow countrymen in the North have any reason to complain because Sir James Craig imposes a similar, or corresponding, declaration upon them. Deputies referred to the increasing tendency to turn the State into a pledge-bound and oath-bound State. That, to my mind, is an evil tendency, and I hope that the Dáil will reject the amendment.
The Minister for Justice has made a statement of which many members were not aware, and that is that the servants of the State made a declaration of loyalty when taking up their positions. The Minister did not state that the form of the declaration was the same as that now laid down in the Bill for local government officials. Are we to understand that it is?
I do not remember the form, but I know that they make some declaration.
Those who read the newspapers know that a certain number of civil servants were dismissed by official orders a short time ago and, following the Minister's statement, we must, I suppose, assume that these men made the declaration to which the Minister refers, and the fact that they made that declaration did not prevent them from being disloyal and from being dismissed from the service. I am speaking without any knowledge, although I tried to find out the reason for the dismissal of these servants as announced in the public press before Christmas. I am opposed to this form of conditional loyalty. I remember that, in 1913, there was a strike which involved a number of railway men. I was employed at a particular centre, and the clerical staff, who never previously declared their loyalty to the company, were asked to take the place of workmen who were striking for a living wage, and in defence of certain conditions of service. They were called upon to be loyal to the company. A certain number only, I am glad to say, of the clerical staff, who never engaged in that occupation, that degrading form of work, offered their services to the company in place of the men on strike. The result was that, after a long drawn out struggle, the servants who offered their services to the company during the trouble, demanded £50 in addition to their pay. If you are going to ask for and if you are going to get that conditional loyalty, it will be of very little value to the Government. I think that, instead of inserting this proposal in a Bill of this kind, it should come within the terms of the Treason Bill under which a person would be hanged, drawn and quartered for changing his mind, or for political opinions, if he had any.
Mr. BYRNE
There would be a lot of hangings.
I know from those who come in contact with civil servants, and from my own experience of them, and I am as certain as I am of standing here, that, in spite of the declaration to which the Minister has referred as being taken by civil servants, a number of civil servants are undoubtedly not political supporters of the present Ministry. If you are going to force Deputies to believe that local government officials by taking this oath will retain their jobs and are going to remain political supporters of whatever Government is in power, you are making the biggest mistake of your lives.
The Deputy is under a misapprehension as to the proposed amendment. There is no intention to secure that officials should be supporters of the Government in power. It is, however, intended, that they should be supporters of the Constitution. The declaration means that they will not engage in any act of hostility. They can have their own political opinions as long as they express them in a constitutional way. It is true, as Deputy Davin stated, that we cannot ensure, by any declaration of this sort, that individuals are going to be loyal to the Constitution. There may be cases of civil servants who are disloyal to the present Constitution and to the present Free State, and I am quite sure that there are also officials of local authorities who are also disloyal. There is no way of ensuring that officials of local authorities will be, at the same time, honourable men and loyal to the Constitution. If a man is dishonourable he can always take an oath and break it. The object of this amendment is more to assist administration and get over administrative difficulties than to ensure loyalty from officials. I am not so sure that Deputy Johnson and other Deputies who have spoken against this amendment should not speak in favour of it, even in the interests of men opposed to us in the past, who may be inclined to change their minds, or who may be anxious to break away from politics. Very often, when a man comes forward for a position there is considerable opposition from people who may have designs upon the same position, and everything that that man did in the past is thrown up against him; all kinds of stories are circulated about him, and I am asked why I should not refuse to sanction his appointment. Stories of whether he robbed banks and committed other offences may or may not be true, but it is necessary for me, very often, to hold up sanction of an appointment for months and months to make sure that such a person will not get appointed. It is a disadvantage to the individual himself and it creates no end of difficulty in the Department. It would be much better for a man to sign this declaration, if he wished to put agitation behind him and to settle down to a life of a law-abiding citizen, as he would thus take up this position by making this declaration. If there were any complaints against him, the fact that he took this declaration would be an answer to such people, who may be enemies of his and who spread stories about him. For that reason I think the Dáil should be willing to agree to the amendment.
I want to disabuse the Minister's mind of the notion that I am speaking on behalf of what I believe to be the right idea of government, which, I think, is not to form and impose oaths on individuals, and particularly to select the individuals on whom you are going to impose such oath or declaration. I think the whole suggestion in this amendment is useless, and is more likely to be damaging than beneficial. Even if it were imposed on everybody, I believe that it would be useless and damaging. You are not going to add an iota to loyalty or good service. You are simply going to make a distinction between one section of local government servants and another section of local government servants, one section of which has taken the oath of allegiance because it was looking for an advance, and the other section that has not taken it because it did not look for an advance. You are simply imposing a kind of artificial distinction between two classes of servants who are in the same employment. The promise to give faithful service is implicit in civil servants, whether they promise it or not. The fact that they sign a declaration of this kind does not add to the faithfulness of the service they give. To add to the promise to give faithful service to his immediate employers, the local government authority, a declaration of allegiance to the Irish Free State and Constitution is simply an addition of something entirely apart from an officer's duties to a local authority.
Deputy O'Connor spoke of State service. I do not know whether he is preparing the way to include all municipal officers and employees in the category of civil servants. I hope some kind of unification of the public services will come, but it is not yet proposed that all employees of local authorities are to be classed as civil servants. If Deputy O'Connor or the Minister think that by holding up a declaration of that kind to any prospective employee, or to any employee who is seeking an advance in his salary or pay, you are going either to add to the faithfulness of his service or ensure that you are only employing a faithful servant, I submit it is very far from probable. The introduction of an artificial declaration of this kind is only irritating. It will do no good, and is presumably intended to pay the respect which imitation confers on the Northern Government, as Deputy Esmonde said, in the example they have set. The Minister, when he brought this Bill to the Dáil, did not think it necessary to introduce any such section. It was passed in the Seanad for some reason best known to Senators. Surely in a matter of this kind the Dáil is capable of making up its own mind as to what is requisite as regards loyalty and faithful service. We should not be led into evil ways, and I suggest it is entering on a reactionary and retrogressive path to introduce a proposition of this kind.
As I understand Deputy Johnson is really objecting, not to the taking of the oath itself, but because all employees of local authorities are not compelled to take it. I agree with that point of view, because officials of local authorities, while they serve local authorities, also serve the State. A man must be either honourable or dishonourable. If a man is honourable in serving the State, he cannot find any objection to taking this oath of allegiance. If he is a dishonourable man, he can take and break the oath at his convenience. I am in agreement with Deputy Johnson when he objects that only one section of the employees will take it while other sections will be left out. I think all sections should take it.
Deputy McBride has touched upon a point very often used as an argument in support of declarations of this kind. He says a man must either be honourable or dishonourable. If he is an honourable man he can have no possible objection to taking the declaration. Let us look at it in this way. Deputy McBride is a truthful man. Suppose, however, that it was insisted, before he could take up some position or appointment, he should sign a declaration always to tell the truth in future, I am sure the Deputy would regard that as an insult. The Minister would be equally justified in demanding from officials an undertaking that they should tell the truth on all occasions, and generally conduct themselves. It would be just as correct, I maintain, to insist on a declaration of that kind as to insist on the argument that Deputy McBride puts up. I think we should look at what is done in other countries where conditions are normal. I do not think you will find there is this persistent insistence on oaths and declarations. It is a kind of forced or artificial loyalty, and not the kind we should seek to secure.
An extremely difficult position has been created in the past by oaths. I believe I would be right in saying that you would have more of the representatives of the people who have been elected to represent them sitting in the Dáil and doing the business of the nation only for oaths that were taken in the past. The Dáil is not going to effect any good by passing this amendment. It would be equally right on the part of the Minister to ask for all sorts of declarations as to the personal conduct of individuals as to exact a declaration of this kind of forced or artificial loyalty, and it is not going to effect the purpose for which it is intended.
What is required in this particular section is just what is necessary for the proper performance of their duties by these officers. The form of the declaration is:—
I, the said A. B., do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare that I will bear allegiance to the Irish Free State and its Constitution as by law established, and that, in the event of such appointment being (or whether such increase is or is not, as the case may require) confirmed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, I will to the best of my judgment and ability duly and faithfully perform the duties of the (or my as the case may require) said office and will observe and obey such orders and directions in relation to such duties as shall lawfully be given to me.
It is necessary that a man who is appointed to one of these offices will carry out his duties. That is the reason why this particular form is adopted. There is no parallel at all between it and what Deputy O'Connell said, that I might just as well insist that a man who takes up this position should be a truthful man. Truth is not essential to holding one of these positions. There are other positions a man might be placed in where truth is essential, and in these a man has to take the oath. I do not know if Deputy O'Connell was ever a witness, but if he was he will remember that he had to take an oath that he was going to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, because the truth is essential in that particular case. In this case it is something different.
After this declaration is taken by an officer sanctioned by the Local Government Department, and if the officer carries out the orders of the council that employs him, if the Local Government Department comes into conflict with the local council, where does the official come in? Is he to be loyal to the people who are his employers or to the Local Government Department, which is an arbitrary body?
His first loyalty is to the Constitution. That does not necessarily mean loyalty to any particular Party.
If there is a conflict, I want to know to whom he is to be loyal —the Government department or the council?
Whichever is the lawful authority.
I assume that both will be lawful. I think that the Minister should answer that question.
I think that it would depend on the particular circumstances.
You cannot conceive a case in which the local authority would call upon one of its officials to do something against the Constitution. They would not have any right to do it, and the case would not arise.
I am very much surprised at Deputy O'Connell's argument that a man who is an honourable man ought to be satisfied to carry out the duties of his position without any declaration. I am afraid if Deputy O'Connell carried that to its logical conclusion we would have something worse than a Divorce Bill introduced here.
You have it now, anyway.
Before the Deputy proceeds, might I be allowed to inform him that he is referring to Deputy McBride's argument and not to mine.
Deputy O'Connell took it up after him. According to Deputy O'Connell, if a man is getting married, it would not be necessary for the young lady to bring him to the church or to the registry office. Deputy O'Connell would say that the man is an honourable man——
The Deputy should go into the Seanad to argue that.
and it is unnecessary. You are insulting the man to ask him to make a declaration; if he is a dishonourable man all the declarations in the world will be of no use. It is ridiculous to take up that line of argument. Why should any employer engage a man who later may make use of his money, his plant, or his property to make war on him? There was some force in one portion of Deputy O'Connell's argument, where he said that a declaration would have no effect as regards a dishonourable man. That is quite right. There are a number of honourable men who will not make a false declaration to get an increase of salary. If men are to take additional money from the State in the form of increased salaries it is only right that they should pledge their loyalty to the State, and not have men in the employment of the State or of local authorities making use of their positions to injure the State. Any step that is taken to put an obstacle in the way of that demoralising conduct is a step that should be taken by every sensible State, and every State takes it.
Deputy Sears' analogy is rather interesting as throwing light upon his point of view. I gather that in his view about the only factor that affects, shall I say, the allegiance of a man to his wife is the fact that he made a promise twenty years ago that he would be loyal to her——
Why is it continued, then?
That the only consideration that prevents a man leaving his wife to go to another woman is that he made a promise a long time ago to be loyal and true. The view that it is only because people make promises on such-and-such a date that they are willing to perform their duty faithfully is a view that is, in my opinion, a slur upon the general conduct of men. I do not believe for a moment that people do their duty simply because they promise to do it, and if the man that Deputy Sears speaks of is an honourable man, so long as he takes the pay he will perform the service; if he is a dishonourable man he will make the declaration, whether he intends to perform the service or not. The assumption that these artificial oaths and forms are the binding factors is a false one, and it is simply degrading to the State that it should introduce such a provision into legislation. Deputy McBride, following others, tried to suggest that my argument is an argument favouring the imposition of such a declaration upon other servants. If any imposition of the kind is to be set before any municipal servant it should undoubtedly be before everyone. I would oppose it if it were proposed, but I am certainly more opposed to making selections in this proposition that Deputy McBride supports, to take a few persons and say: "You at any rate are bound to make this declaration. We will leave all the rest to be as disloyal as they please."
Deputy Johnson took up wrongly the point I made about marriage. I did not say that it bound a man or proved to be binding for any number of years, but my point was that the wisdom of the whole civilised world insists on it being taken. As to his other point, regarding the effect it would have on an honourable man, I say that it will have this effect, that many honourable men, as I am aware from personal experience—men who have got tired of blowing up bridges and things of that kind—would be very glad of this oath, that could point to it and say, "Now that I am getting my living from this public body on the understanding that the declaration is part of it. I will not blow up any more bridges or give assistance to those who do." They will take advantage of this very good opportunity of leading the life of an honest citizen from that time forward.
That kind of man is not worth employing.
He may be a more honest man than the man who took the oath and continued that work.
Deputy Sears has brought the discussion to a very interesting point by his reference to the fact that no man should receive payment for service rendered, past or present, unless he takes some form of oath of allegiance to the Irish Free State Constitution.
I said nothing about the past.
I refer to the past because only a few days ago the Minister for Finance, in justifying a certain measure he brought in to give pensions to two individuals who are not very hard up, referred to the fact that a certain very prominent man was now drawing a pension from the State who had blown up, or assisted in blowing up, a good many bridges. He has not been asked to take any form of declaration of allegiance to the Irish Free State Constitution. But the two individuals who are to receive these pension, if the Bill I refer to is passed in its present form—I qualify it by saying "if"—are also to receive as pensions the very considerable sum of £500 for life for one year's service, although they will not be asked to take any oath, and probably if they were asked they would not do so.
A pensioner has no work to do.
He is a charge on the taxpayer in the same way as those people who will be asked to make this declaration.
How can you ask a pensioner to carry out his work, as he has no work to do?
The person to whom I referred has his pension, not for services but for disability caused through wounds incurred during past service. If that disability passes away and a medical board is satisfied that he has recovered from his wounds his pension will cease. It is simply a disability pension and cannot be regarded as a pension that is awarded for service.
We have no evidence that he destroyed bridges or did any damage like that. It is right to say that.
I have my own opinion about that, with all due respect to the President. The fact is that they are drawing money from the taxpayers through the agency of this Dáil, although they are not called upon to take the declaration the same as the people specified in the amendment. These two judges, the luckiest men in the country, are to get a pension of £500 a year for life for one year's service, and in doing that I think you are making yourselves ridiculous, as you are also in the case of the Republican T.D. who is drawing a pension of £120 a year from the Free State, and without being called upon to make any declaration. These two judges, to whom it is proposed to give £500 a year, are out preaching against the Constitution of the Free State.
I think it is desirable that we should be clear as to what we are to decide. The persons sought to be covered by this amendment are persons in receipt of moneys from public funds, from public rates collected from the ratepayers of their areas, and the declaration is in effect simply a declaration to respect the rights of their fellow-citizens. A declaration to accept the Constitution means that, and neither more nor less than that.
It does not mean to destroy it, at any rate.
It certainly does not mean to destroy it, neither does it mean to accept it as a stereotyped, castiron thing which will remain in its present form for all time. Deputy Johnson, on behalf of his party, entering the Dáil and having accepted the particular formula which is accepted here by all members of the Dáil, felt it necessary to make an explicit statement informing his fellow-Deputies of the spirit, intention and outlook with which he accepted the Constitution generally, and that formula in particular. An undertaking to accept the Constitution means simply no more than this: that the person giving the undertaking will respect the rights of his fellow-citizens; in other words, that he will confine himself to lawful constitutional methods for the propagation of any particular views he may happen to hold. This declaration involves no political restriction whatsoever, no restraint on any lawful measure of measures, and no restraint on political opinion. I want that to be clear, at any rate. Deputy Esmonde referred to an undertaking which was exacted in the Northern area from officials of local authorities. He said it was substantially similar to this. It was very different from this in one important respect—that it was not an undertaking to accept or work within a particular frame-work of Government, but an explicit and specific declaration of loyalty to a particular Government or political group, and the Deputy will agree that that is a very real and very vital difference. There is nothing of the kind involved in the declaration which we are discussing; and as I say, in effect and practice it boils down to this: that the person making this declaration will respect the rights of his fellow-citizens.
It is a source of complaint with the people all through the country, either in their capacity as taxpayers or ratepayers, that persons who have not respected their rights, persons who, in fact, are not at the moment respecting their rights, are deriving their livelihood from moneys paid by them. They object to that, and they complain frequently and bitterly of that to the Government. The Minister for Local Government has spoken of the number of objections and remonstrances he receives in connection with particular appointments. The people are, I should say, as a minimum, entitled to this: that men maintained out of moneys paid by them will not make war upon them, will not trample upon their ordinary democratic rights as citizens of the State, will not turn round and destroy their property, and pile heavy costs upon them by way of compensation or otherwise.
Is not that provided for by the Treason Bill?
It is—the actual offence following upon detection and conviction is provided for in the Treason Bill undoubtedly, but the additional safeguard or guarantee that men entering the public service, or men undergoing some change of status or improvement in their remuneration in the public service, will explicitly undertake to respect the rights of their fellow-citizens is not provided for in any other Bill than this, and it is sought to be provided for in this. I want to get discussion down to realities. I want to make it clear there is no question here of declaring adhesion to a particular Government, a particular party. There is no question here even of accepting the Constitution as the last word in Irish development no more than, let us say, Deputy Johnson accepted it when he made the formal declaration to which I have referred. The only question is this of respecting your neighbour's rights, of undertaking to accept the democratic idea that the laws and constitution of this country can be changed only by certain forms and only under certain conditions, the conditions being that they are changed by people politically responsible, acting in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their fellow-citizens. Perhaps the soundest point, the only real point, that was made against this amendment, is that it is partial. Deputy Johnson said that if the thing is right and sound, why not make it general, why confine it to entrants to the service of a local authority, and to people undergoing some improvement in their position and remuneration under a local authority? There is some validity at any rate in that point. If you start from the principle that the people are entitled to this, that men deriving their livelihood from their money shall not make war upon them, shall not impose additional financial burdens upon them, shall not use the position, perhaps of leisure, which they enjoy in their capacity of public servants to make war on the public, there is, as I say, some validity in Deputy Johnson's view that this declaration ought to be general and not simply partial or piecemeal as is proposed.
The Minister, I suppose, could answer that by saying that the evil or the menace does not exist on a scale calling for such a remedy, that his trouble is the appointments he is called upon to ratify from week to week, or month to month, and that he should be in a position to answer those who write him saying that men did this and that in the past and, in fact, were contemplating a repetition of such conduct in the future. He should be able to reassure those people by saying: "This man has accepted the Constitution and has undertaken to obey the law and respect the rights of his fellow-citizens; in such a state of affairs I propose to endorse and ratify his appointment." Similarly, when there is a question of promotion, preferment or increase in remuneration, pretty much the same state of affairs would apply.
It certainly makes for—not all at once, as Deputy Johnson suggests, what ought to be the position—a gradual arrival at a condition of things where all the people in the employment of the public, and deriving their livelihood from public funds, will have given a declaration of this kind to respect their fellow-citizens' rights, to accept the Constitution and to work within and through the Constitution to whatever political objective or ideal may be theirs. But let us not rush off on the tangent which Deputy Lyons and others rushed off on, indicating that this declaration was a demand for political adhesion. Deputy Davin, I think, followed Deputy Lyons on the idea that this declaration constituted a demand, in fact, for adhesion to some political group or party.
Has any man the right to go out and say that the Constitution is not lawful, and constitutionally to preach that doctrine to convert the majority of the people to his point of view?
What exactly does the Deputy mean by saying it is not lawful? Surely it was passed section by section, through the Dáil. He can say it is undesirable, that he would like a different Constitution, and that, in fact, he wants a Republic in this country. He might say he would like to take over the British Empire and run it with this country as the centre, or something else of that kind. But to say that the Constitution is not lawful, is saying something so patently untrue that I imagine any sensible local authority would either dismiss the man or have him certified.
That will certainly be untrue after the Treason Bill passes.
Mr. O'CONNELL
It will be an example of the difficulties that he will be up against.
I am endeavouring to put the point whether it is a reasonable thing to ask from men entering the service of the people and entering a position from which they will derive their livelihood from the people's money, a declaration to respect the people's rights, the rights of their fellow-citizens, and to live peaceably within the Constitution of the country. If they wish they could work politically towards any objective that they desire, just as Deputy Johnson has undertaken to work within the Constitution towards some political objective which he has not yet defined.
I take it the Minister's case is that there are members of the Dáil who would, but for the fact that they took an oath in coming into the Dáil, be out with the Republican opposition. The only thing that keeps them loyal is the fact that they took that oath. They do not believe in it; they do not believe in the Constitution; they are trying to get away from it, but they took an oath and therefore they feel themselves so bound that they dare not move away from the strict path of loyalty to the Constitution. That is the argument of the Minister. Nothing keeps them in the Dáil but the fact that they took that oath!
My objection to this proposal is that it is useless, irritating and retrogressive. Oaths of that kind do not bind people to loyalty. They do not bind people to give faithful service. They bind people to pretend to give faithful service perhaps, but they do not actually bind them to give that faithful service. To impose an obligation of that kind on a man before he receives an appointment or before he receives an advance in salary, is simply asking him to go through a form which may or may not have any substance. It is certainly tending towards developing a hypocritical spirit.
I have listened to those arguments for some time, and I have endeavoured to see what the objection really is to this formula. If it is good enough for members of a council elected by the people, and who pay officers and put them in a position of profit, to make a declaration, and if it is good enough for the chairman who is selected to carry on the work also to make a declaration, I do not see how any real objection could be made by the servants of that local authority to take an oath. What objection can they have to making a declaration of loyalty to the State and to the council for whom they work? As far as the declaration is concerned, any man who desires to do his work honestly and justly need have no fear. The man who is out to do mischief will fear and will not make the declaration.
I am sure there are plenty of people in the country who will be very glad to get positions under councils, or perhaps under the Government, but because they have to make a declaration of that kind before their fellows, they will not take the position, and will continue to act as they have been acting, pulling down the State in every way they can. There is no use in mincing matters on a question like this. The main object of this is to get at the people who endeavour to pull down the State. If the Dáil accepts the matter in that light, they will have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it is only right and honest such a declaration should be insisted on.
What declaration has to be made by the member of a council?
It is not this declaration, but it is one indicating that they will carry out their duties faithfully and honestly for the people who sent them there. That is very little different from what is here proposed.
Is it the intention of the Minister to apply this to members of all local authorities? Is it his intention that before they take office they shall make a similar declaration?
That does not arise. I did not make any such statement. They have to make a declaration, and the chairman of every council makes a declaration and signs it.
I know, but it is not an oath. They are not sworn before a Peace Commissioner the same as would have to be done in this case. I am not convinced by the speech of the Minister. I have not changed my idea in regard to this oath in the slightest way. My original intention was to vote against the amendment. I will do so, and I hope the other Deputies will do the same. This oath is absolutely unnecessary.
Deputy Lyons, in his opening speech, displayed a very high civic spirit when he said he would not give a silent vote on this issue. I, too, seeing a division will doubtless be challenged, cannot give a silent vote. Of course, it is true we could go out on the lobbies and abstain from voting.
It is not the first time.
Mr. HOGAN
I am not in the habit of going into the Lobby. According to my lights I endeavour to give my vote, and in this issue I do think there is a very great element of responsibility. It is an absolutely new departure, and in many respects it runs counter to all our old-established opinions and all our old notions of freedom of thought. I feel at this juncture that a Deputy should not abstain from voting on this issue. It is difficult, I must say, to determine what line of policy to take. One has only to listen to both sides and to hear their arguments and, if it is possible, to form a decision in regard to policy. On the one hand we are told by the Ministerial group that the State has an undoubted right—and with every show of argument—to exact loyalty from its officials. I agree. On the other hand you have, from the Labour group particularly, the opinion expressed that oaths and declarations of allegiance are often worthless, and that perhaps the acceptance of this declaration is no assurance of fidelity. I quite agree also. But it can be put up just as well that the declaration may be unnecessary, that there are sufficient powers already vested in the Minister, that he can exercise Departmental discipline to deal with refractory officials down the country, to compel them to give the suitable, legal, and proper returns which are required under statutory authority by his Department. I agree that that is also so. It has been put up as well that you may turn down honest men, that men perhaps who are troubled with a conscience, as some cynics would say, will refuse to subscribe to the declaration of allegiance, and that certain dishonest men will go up and accept this declaration, get work, and discharge their duties in an embittered spirit.
We have to take perhaps a broader view and to look at higher and wider issues on this question. Is it right, then, that an official should be put into such a situation which would leave him with opportunities to work against the State, work not alone against the interests of the State and the interests of the Constitution, but even against the very interests of the ratepayers who, in the first instance, are contributing to his salary? I submit that is not a fair position for the people to be put into, and, holding that view, my vote on this issue at least will be that this declaration should be accepted and should be signed. The Minister, it is true, has not given us any figures or statistics to show to what extent this activity down the country is working against his Department. We should like to have some information on that point. But the Minister at least has put a prima facie case that officials down the country are not, perhaps, quite satisfactory, and that certain men are being introduced to public positions to whom the Ministry cannot look with any great faith or on whom it cannot put any great reliance, and that they may eventually subvert the whole fabric and the whole stability of local government. I say that is a danger, not a potential danger, but a danger perhaps of the very near future.
We have no means of knowing, and we cannot forecast or predict how the next elections will go—whether on certain Boards men may be elected who are enemies of the Constitution and who would adopt the tactics of the party returned in 1920 or subsequent years, and refuse to acknowledge the Local Government Department as established by this Dáil, and would deny it information or would not submit to its authority. I say that is a danger we have got to face and to look forward to. I do not know to what extent this thing may happen; it is, perhaps, hypothetical, but still as a hypothetical case we are obliged, I submit, to take proper precautions against it. In addition, we must bear this point in view. The Constitution can be amended only by constitutional effort. That is one of the principal reasons why I am voting in favour of the acceptance of this amendment. We cannot have people going out on that kind of thing, denying the authority of the Constitution and of the Oireachtas it has established. We cannot have that. If men would like to change this Constitution they will have to do it in proper form. There is one way of doing it, and they cannot deviate in any way from that. It must be done by complying with the formalities of the Constitution. I submit on that issue that we have a perfect right to demand from a civil servant that he will do nothing against this Constitution. He is only asked to bear allegiance to the Irish Free State and its Constitution. That does not pre-suppose that he is called upon to give it unbounded affection.
It will be unqualified loyalty.
Mr. HOGAN
He is only asked while the Dáil and while constitutional efforts last, that he should bear it true allegiance and carry out its decisions. As such I say there is no valid reason why this amendment should be turned down.
It seems to me that the only argument that has been put up from the Ministerial side has fined itself down to this: that the real object to be served by this amendment—I took a note of it when the Minister for Local Government was speaking— is to remove administrative difficulties. There have been people writing to him that a certain official may be appointed, and he may get all sort of complaints that this man did so-and-so in years gone by. No doubt they all ask where he was in 1916, or some similar question, or whether he was one of the 200,000 in the Post Office, but it is only natural that these kinds of objections will be put up by people who themselves have been disappointed in seeking positions. That is only natural, and the Minister takes this as a short cut, as it were, out of the trouble of coming to a decision as to whether a man should get a position or not. The Minister for Justice, in his speech, insisted, as he always does, on the rights of the people, but here, as I understand it, we have appointments which, in the first place, have to be made by the representatives of the people. A man is elected and appointed to the position—let it be county surveyor or any other similar position—by the members of the local council, who are the elected representatives of the people. The Minister for Local Government then has to sanction this appointment, but he has to take into account all the objections which may be raised by other people who are not representative people—people who are jealous because they do not get the appointment themselves.
Not always.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Not always, but generally if these are not the people who make the actual complaints, the actual complaints have been originally inspired by people who have been disappointed in not getting the position or who, through jealousy or some other reason, do not want certain people to get it. It seems to me that that is the only object which is sought to be served by this declaration, and I think if it is the only object it is not sufficient to justify a departure of this kind, more especially when the first check will be there, that these officials must, in the first place, be appointed or promoted by a resolution of the representative authority speaking in the name of the people whom they represent.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 12.
Tá
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John J. Cole.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Connor Hogan.
- Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Padraig Mac Fadáin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Donchadh O Guaire.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
Níl
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Tellers:—Tá: Liam Mac Sioghaird and Séamus O Murchadha; Níl: Domhnall O Muirgheasa and Tomás de Nógla.
Question declared carried.
I move to report progress.