In Committee on Finance. - Acquisition of Land (Allotments) (Amendment) Bill, 1934—Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(1) Each of the following persons shall be an unemployed person for the purposes of this Act—
(a) a person for the time being in receipt of unemployment benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1933;
(b) a person for the time being in receipt of unemployment assistance under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933 (No. 46 of 1933);
(c) any other person who for the time being complies with the prescribed conditions.
(2) The Minister may from time to time by order make regulations in relation to any matter referred to in the immediately preceding sub-section as prescribed.
I move amendments Nos. 1 and 2:—
1. To delete sub-section (1) (c).
2. To delete sub-section (2).
These two amendments are put down for the purpose of finding out who are the third class of unemployed in the country for whom this Bill is intended to make provision. We know already that there are 94,000 people drawing unemployment insurance under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and from 60,000 to 90,000 for whom the Minister is making preparations to give doles during next year; but who are the third class, the other people in addition to those I have mentioned?
Possibly that is a little bit of a forecast. I do not think the Minister for Agriculture's draft has gone to that point yet. Would the Minister tell us who the third class are, and what are the prescribed conditions he intends to lay down to make people eligible for these grants in relation to allotments other than the two classes referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b)?
Dr. Ryan
We do not know whether the Unemployment Assistance Act will be in operation before this measure, and we may have to deal with the unemployed by regulations under it before the Unemployment Assistance Act comes into force. In the second place, it is possible that for some technical reason people might be prevented from enjoying the provisions of this Act through being employed casually for two or three days at the time the allotments were being allotted. It is considered necessary to have power to prescribe regulations with regard to people who give casual labour one day a week, or maybe two or three days, at the time a particular allotment is made, and who, perhaps, had not done so for months before or for months afterwards. The paragraph in the sub-section is intended to cover such contingencies.
The Minister's explanation with regard to the second class of persons is that this Act is intended to deal with people who will be entitled to assistance under the Unemployment Assistance Act, but who may not be in receipt of such assistance owing to some delay on the Minister's part. If that is all that is in question it could be met by amending the paragraph: by making it read, a person in receipt of a certificate in relation to unemployment assistance whether he is enjoying relief or not, or even to meet temporary circumstances. An amendment to that effect could be moved on Report. There may be people who would be prevented from benefit under paragraph (b) because they were employed casually for a few days a week. I would remind the Minister that the test under the Unemployment Assistance Act is not the number of days employed, but the amount earned. Is it the Minister's proposal that even although a person is in receipt of so much money as would disentitle him to assistance under the Unemployment Assistance Act, such a person is to get the benefit of the provisions of this Act? If so, let him extend the whole thing, say what is to be the minimum scale of income in a particular week which will deprive a person of an allotment. Let us get some test fixed. That is why I put down these amendments: to find out what is in the Minister's mind with regard to conditions, and how they were going to be prescribed.
The prescribed conditions are going to be laid down by order. They may be changed from time to time, changed, for instance, to suit the whims of a needy part of the electorate of a particular constituency round about, say, a critical period of the year. It is undesirable that such power to shift backwards and forwards should be given in regard to what is a public health matter: that there should be power to make such a change just at the will of a Minister, a change made by order, not published to this House and not open to the criticism of the House, and again capable of change when a particular period had passed. I ask the Minister either to agree to delete paragraph (c) with which, of course, sub-section (2) falls, or else agree that the Order will be of the type of Order that is laid on the Table of the two Houses to be nullified by an adverse vote, but without having any effect upon what happened in the meantime. That, at any rate, will give the House notice, and will enable criticism to be passed in a matter which is eminently open to criticism if it is abused.
Dr. Ryan
I have no objection to the usual clause going in—that this Order shall be laid on the Table and so forth.
Will the Minister introduce an amendment to that effect?
Dr. Ryan
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister has given us an estimate of what the operation of this Bill will cost. Is it intended that the Minister will pay to the local authority the full cost of the operation of the measure?
Dr. Ryan
Yes, in the case of the unemployed.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(1) Whenever—
(a) a local authority has exercised in respect of allotments the powers conferred on them by either of the two immediately preceding sections, or
(b) the Minister has made a grant under the next following section in respect of allotments to enable seeds, manures or agricultural implements to be provided free of charge therefor,
any inspector (subject to production by him if so required of his authority in writing as an inspector) may enter upon and inspect
(3) In this section the word "inspector" means any person authorised in writing by the Minister or the Minister for Agriculture to exercise the powers conferred on an inspector by this section.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (1) (b), line 58, before the word "seeds" to insert the word "vegetable."
I am not sure that it is necessary to move this amendment at all, because the subject matter of it is tied up in the definition clause—Section 1 (2). That sub-section lays down that the words and expressions to which a particular meaning is given by the Principal Act are to have the same meaning under this Bill. Of course, the whole scope of the earlier Act was limited by the definition of "allotments." Allotments, under that Act, are to be for the purpose of growing vegetables for the use of—and only for the use of—the person who grows them or his family. I am assuming that that is still intended and that there will be no provision of seeds or manures or, as now proposed, potato-spraying materials, if the person who gets an allotment attempts to sell the produce of that allotment. By putting down this amendment, I wanted to find out if it was proposed to abide rigidly by the intention of the original Act—to provide food for the allottee and his family. If that be the case, the amendment need not be pressed.
Dr. Ryan
The definition in the Principal Act still stands. What the Deputy had in mind would not come in under this Bill.
There are to be vegetables for home consumption—for consumption by the person himself and his family.
Dr. Ryan
Mainly for the consumption of himself and his family.
It will not be permissible for him to use the allotment for the purpose of some small branch of trade?
Dr. Ryan
He will be disqualified if he does so.
Is it the duty of the inspector to report on any case in which he finds that allotments are not being properly used?
Dr. Ryan
Yes, if it comes to his knowledge.
It is his duty to report?
Dr. Ryan
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (3), line 10, after the word "person" to insert the words "who is ordinarily a civil servant or an officer or employee of a local authority and is".
I put down this amendment in order to place some impediment on the multiplication of inspectors which is proceeding in the country at present. The phrase used here is very general. Subject to the happening of certain things "any inspector (subject to production by him, if so required, of his authority in writing as an inspector) may enter upon and inspect any of the said allotments and, in respect of any allotment for which seeds, manures or agricultural implements have been provided as aforesaid"—there are certain additions being made to that to-day—"may also inspect any such seeds, manures or agricultural implements." In sub-section (3) we have a delightful phrase used in defining the word "inspector.""Inspector" means "any person authorised in writing by the Minister or the Minister for Agriculture to exercise the powers conferred on any inspector by this section." There is not much in that in the way of development of intention. I want to limit the personnel of the inspectorate and to secure that the people to be appointed as inspectors will be persons who are ordinarily in the service of the State or else in the service of a local authority. I presume that the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting that amendment.
Dr. Ryan
I do not know why the Deputy raises this point. He may have some special reason for raising it. In every Bill brought before this House in which the duties of an inspector were dealt with, this was the phrase used. In the Bills dealing with eggs, butter, fresh meat, and other products the same wording was used.
I have no amendment to that definition. I have an amendment to the word "inspector" but not in the definition section. The authorisation may still be as it is in sub-section (3). What I want to limit is the personnel. The Minister has a multitude of inspectors on his hands at the moment and what I want to secure is that he will not appoint new people but will confer additional duties and powers on some of the people already associated with him. I want to tie up the personnel of the inspectorate in the provision towards the end of page 3, or the amendment can be made in the definition section. I do not care where it is made. I am not debating the vague powers given. What I am concentrating on are the individuals. The question might be brought to an end if the Minister would tell us whether it will be necessary to appoint anybody other than those already in the Civil Service—there are many civil servants engaged on different kinds of inspection under his own Ministry—or in the employment of a local authority. I do not see how it will be necessary to employ anybody outside these groups. If there is to be only £6,500 spent under this Act, there will not be an enormous amount of inspection to be done. Why should not the people already employed have these additional duties and powers imposed on them? That is the only point I am dealing with at the moment.
Dr. Ryan
I cannot say at the moment that an inspector of the Department would be available for this work. It would require an additional inspector for at least three months of the year. If an existing inspector of the Department does the work, he will have to be replaced. There is no point, so far as I can see, in the Deputy's amendment, because if we have to get a deputy for an inspector of the Department we shall have to make an appointment to the Civil Service.
Is there anything to prevent the supervision work being done by an officer of a local authority?
Dr. Ryan
There is: the work is being paid for by the central authority.
Could not the local inspector of the Department do the work?
The central authority has made a good deal out of the local authorities during the last year or two by withholding grants.
Dr. Ryan
Is that a reason why we should place additional duties on them?
Let the extra duties be placed on people who are in a position to carry them out.
This Act is to apply to 80 or 90 local bodies, each of which has a staff of its own, large or small. Does the Minister suggest that a new inspector will have to be taken on for three months of the year to inspect these allotments?
Dr. Ryan
May I put the matter rather differently? Is it contended that even if the Department of Agriculture have to employ temporary hands, these temporary hands are not to be available under any circumstances for the work of inspection under this Bill?
Dr. Ryan
They can be made available under the Bill but not under Deputy McGilligan's amendment.
Under the amendment they would have to be taken into the Civil Service.
How about temporary hands in the Civil Service or persons employed by a local authority? Does the Deputy not realise that there are, ordinarily, in the Civil Service unestablished people?
Quite, but a man who would be engaged only for three or six months would not be, ordinarily, a civil servant. The point I am making is that no matter what circumstances arise, although one of these people might be a convenient person to do this work, Deputy McGilligan proposes to preclude the Department from employing him.
My point is that when it is sought to employ new people the onus is on the people who are seeking to employ these people to show a case for it. I asked the Minister to show such a case, but he has not done so. He knows that it will be necessary to get such people. Let us assume, according to what Deputy Moore said, that these people are precluded. Does Deputy Moore believe that it is going to be necessary to employ people not ordinarily civil servants or in the service of the local authority to carry out this £6,500 job all over the country?
I do not say that, but I do not see any reason for precluding the Department, in circumstances where they may possibly have temporary people employed on other work and where such people may be suitable for the work in connection with this Act, from availing of the services of such people.
The question is to ensure whether or not the Department will employ extra people to supervise this work. I ask Deputy Moore whether there is not a county committee of agriculture in Wicklow——
Dr. Ryan
There is none in the City of Dublin.
——and whether they have not officials, and whether there is any reason why anyone should go into Wicklow to supervise in, say, Arklow or Bray, any work that may be carried out in connection with this Act in addition to, say, the officials of the county committee of agriculture or to some passing or casual inspector from the Department of Agriculture itself.
I have in mind with regard to this that one of the officials whom I know personally to be most interested in the idea of this Bill is frequently engaged by the Forestry Department to do inspections of land in connection with forestry work. Suppose that a temporary inspector is required for forestry purposes, as may be necessary in view of the more extensive programme proposed by the present Government, why should his services not be availed of in connection with this Act if he be suitable? Why go to the expense of sending two inspectors to the same district if one inspector will do? I do not say that such circumstances will arise, but I see no reason for tying the hands of the Department.
Dr. Ryan
Deputy McGilligan asked me whether I think assistants will be required or not. Certainly, one inspector will be required for part of the year. Whether he can be spared from the work of the Department of Agriculture I cannot say at the moment, but I do not think he can. We may, therefore, have to employ a temporary inspector for three months or six months of the year, and I hold that if this amendment is carried we will be compelled to employ a man as a civil servant for only six months of the year.
I am going to press this amendment. I see that the whole object is to provide more jobs.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy may rest assured that I will not put any of my own brothers into the job as he did when in office.
The Minister may say that as often as he likes, as he has done before, but he cannot produce proof.
Personalities do not help debate.
That might have been said to the Minister when he was half way through that scurrilous statement. I press for a division on this.
The remark made by the Chair was intended for the House generally.
I said nothing that was personal. I press the amendment to a division.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided:—Tá, 34; Níl, 75.
Tá
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Keating, John.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Curran, Richard.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Desmond, William.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James F.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Rowlette, R. J.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister has intimated that an inspector is likely to be appointed, or to be employed, for about six months of the year. I would like to know from the Minister what kind of work the inspector is going to do. The measure is intended to provide for the giving of allotments to persons in urban districts and it seems to me that you are likely to have these availed of in a large number of districts, if they are not availed of in all. There will be about 80 centres and the persons who will be given these plots will be the unemployed in these areas. These persons will require more technical guidance than administrative supervision. At any rate, if they require administrative supervision, they will require technical guidance as well. I cannot conceive a scheme such as this being embarked upon without having some arrangement by which the county instructor of agriculture will have some responsibility or will be asked to visit the site of these plots, to consult with the persons who will be working these plots and to give them some elementary instructions or any instructions that may be necessary as to how to proceed.
In the matter of the use of seeds or manures or any review of whether the plots are being used for the purpose for which they are being provided, the work could best be carried out by the county agricultural instructor or some of his assistants. On the administrative side, the town clerk or the secretary of the town commissioners could do all the administrative supervision that is necessary. The urban authority would have a certain amount of administrative work to do in providing these plots, dividing them and parcelling them out, but I think that any administrative supervision that is required could be carried out by the staff of the urban district council itself, and I should like to know what the inspector appointed under this Bill will have to do. If he is to be employed for several weeks the expenditure on his salary, travelling expenses and subsistence allowance may well run into ten per cent. of what the total cost of the Bill will be.
Dr. Ryan
The urban authorities will have certain duties in the administration of the Act, as under the Principal Act the urban authority looked after the taking over of the land. Very often they got over a certain part of the difficulty by letting the entire amount of land to a society and the society, of course, under certain rules which were approved, divided that land amongst its members. We have provided in the Estimate of £6,500 that was mentioned for instructors. We estimate that there will not be more than seven or eight areas which will be able to take up the scheme this year, because it is now rather late in the year. It is unlikely that more than seven or eight will be able to take up the scheme and we think that about three instructors may be necessary for about 11 weeks. These instructors will be able to take two or three centres each and will be employed only temporarily for the 11 weeks. One inspector will be necessary to visit the different places and see that the instructors are looking after things properly and that the plots are being properly utilised. There has always been an inspector for these allotments, as the Deputy, who was Minister for Local Government, knows. There has always been an inspector to go around to see that the plots are being properly kept. Where a plot is being neglected or has not been properly used, it is taken from the person who holds it and given to somebody else. I think one inspector will be quite sufficient for a limited period.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) The Minister for Agriculture with the sanction of the Minister for Finance may, as and when he shall think proper, make out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas a grant of such amount as he shall think proper—
(a) to any local authority, for the purpose of enabling such local authority to supply, free of cost, to unemployed persons to whom lettings of allotments have been made by such authority under the Principal Act as amended by this Act seeds and manures for use in such allotments, and to provide agricultural implements for use by such unemployed persons free of cost for the cultivation of such allotments, and
(b) to any association of persons to whom a letting of allotments has been made by a local authority under paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Principal Act, for the purpose of enabling such association to supply, free of cost, to unemployed persons to or for whom any of such allotments have been let or made available by such association seeds and manures for use in such allotments and to provide agricultural implements for use by such unemployed persons free of cost for the cultivation of such allotments, and
(c) to any corporate body or unincorporated association approved of by the said Minister which provides, otherwise than under the Principal Act, allotments for unemployed persons, for the purpose of enabling such body or association to supply, free of cost, to such unemployed persons seeds and manures for use in such allotments and to provide agricultural implements for use by such unemployed persons free of cost for the cultivation of such allotments.
(2) The Minister for Agriculture may by order make regulations for giving effect to this section and, in particular, for ensuring that grants made under this section will be applied by the grantees thereof for the purposes for which such grants were made and that seeds and manures supplied and agricultural implements provided under this section are of suitable quality.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9:—
In sub-section (1), line 22, to delete the words "and manures" and substitute the words "manures and potato spraying materials."
In sub-section (1), line 32, to delete the words "and manures" and substitute the words "manures and potato spraying materials."
In sub-section (1), line 41, to delete the words "and manures" and substitute the words "manures and potato spraying materials."
In sub-section (2), line 49, to delete the words "and manures" and substitute the words "manures and potato spraying materials."
These four amendments are to the same effect. We think that potato spraying materials should be included with seeds and manures.
Amendments put and agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
What is the intention of sub-section (1) of this section?
Dr. Ryan
The sub-section deals with a rather involved legal question. The object of the section, however, is to lessen the delay involved in the compulsory acquisition of land under the procedure prescribed in the Principal Act. I believe the effect of the amendment to the Principal Act is to expedite the taking over of land.
How? It is the machinery I am anxious about.
Dr. Ryan
Under Section 4 of the Principal Act, when a local authority has failed to obtain land by agreement, they may acquire it compulsorily in like manner as lands are acquired under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts and the necessary public local inquiry will be held by an inspector of the Minister at which all interested persons have the right to appear. If the inspector is satisfied as to the reasonableness of the scheme he makes a Provisional Order authorising the acquisition of the land. Owners of land can appeal against the order within a period of five weeks from its service on them, and can lodge petitions against it either to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health or the Circuit Court. That was the procedure until the Housing Act of 1931 was passed, and under that Act where no objection is raised a public inquiry is not necessary for the taking over of the land.
The shortening of time is where no objection is made. There will be no shortening of time where an objection is made.
Dr. Ryan
As far as I know, under the provisions of the 1931 Act, there is no shortening of time when an objection is raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 9 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.
Dr. Ryan
I suggest that the Report Stage be taken to-morrow.
What about the amendments which were promised?
Dr. Ryan
I shall move the amendment which I promised with regard to laying the Regulations on the Table of the House.
Subject to seeing this amendment, we agree.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 15th February.
