Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Mar 1929

Vol. 11 No. 7

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS (BRIDGES) BILL, 1929—REPORT.

Mr. MILROY

I move amendment 1:—Section 14, sub-section (1). To delete in line 60 the words "within three months," and to substitute therefor the words "as soon as may be."

This is a simple amendment, but the need for it is obvious. It is probable that the time required by the Minister for Local Government for an examination of the designs and the plans will be more than three months. The object of the amendment is to meet that contingency. Obviously, it would not be desirable that the time which the Department might require for an examination of the plans and the designs should be limited to three months, if it was likely that a longer period was essential. This amendment is moved with the object of making provision to meet a situation of that kind. It is not to be implied, and is quite unlikely, that this will cause unnecessary delay in expediting approval to plans and designs submitted.

Mr. DOWDALL

This Bill was examined very carefully by a Joint Committee. As the Bill left that Joint Committee it was, in effect, an agreed Bill. There is a good deal to be said for Senator Milroy's amendment, but I would suggest to him that the words "as soon as may be" are rather indefinite. If he would agree to a modification of the amendment I would suggest that it should read "as soon as may be, but not later than six months." That would give six months instead of three. I know that the Local Government Department is anxious to expedite the passage of this Bill, the object of which is to proceed with the construction of a work that it is hoped will help to relieve the congestion of traffic in the city. I hope the Senator may be able to accept the suggestion that I have made to him.

Mr. MILROY

As far as I understand it, the preparation of plans and designs for a work such as that contemplated here usually takes a much longer period than six months, probably twelve months or eighteen months. The period at the disposal of the Department to enable it to make all necessary inquiries should not, I think, be limited, and it is with that object the amendment was moved. The period at the disposal of the Department to enable it to make all necessary inquiries and to secure skilled advice should not be shorter than the period which the promoters of the Bill themselves had when preparing their plans and designs. If the circumstances are such that a less period than six months would suffice for that examination by the Department, then I have not the least doubt but that sanction would be given, but to tie the Department down to a fixed period would have the effect of putting restrictions on it which, possibly, might not have the results that Senator Dowdall thinks.

Mr. DOWDALL

I am not insisting on the alteration which I have suggested to the Senator because I have some reason to believe that the Local Government Department is anxious to expedite as much as possible the re-construction of Butt Bridge. I simply thought that the words "as soon as may be" were rather indefinite. I do not want to press the point that I have put forward. I would like to know from the Minister if he has any objection to this.

Mr. FORAN

I would suggest to Senator Dowdall that he should press the alteration he has mentioned— namely, the insertion of the six months period. Everyone familiar with the neighbourhood of Butt Bridge is fully aware of the urgency of this work. If the period for the giving of approval for the plans and designs is left indefinite, as Senator Milroy's amendment, if carried, will leave it, then it may be that this work will not be proceeded with as soon as it should be. If Senator Dowdall's suggestion was adopted, it would prevent anybody pigeon-holing this. The widening of Butt Bridge is urgently required, and there should be no excuse left to the Port and Docks Board, or to anybody else, to cause a further delay. The widening of the bridge is a very necessary development in that part of the city.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think that the words "as soon as may be" mean with all reasonable speed.

Mr. JAMESON

Would the Senator agree to altering the amendment to read "as soon as may be possible?"

Mr. DOWDALL

I think that the Local Government Department is anxious to get the work through as soon as possible. That was why I did not feel disposed to move any amendment to the amendment before the House.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Would Senator Milroy accept this alteration, "as soon as may be possible?"

Mr. MILROY

What the amendment aims at is that the Department should give its approval "as soon as may be." I do not think it should be restricted in any way as regards the period.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Mr. MILROY

I move Amendment 2:—Section 14. To add at the end of the section, a new sub-section as follows:—

"(5) Any expenses incurred by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in relation to the approval or disapproval by him of the estimates, designs and plans referred to in this section shall to such extent as shall be certified by the said Minister be paid to him by the Board and shall be defrayed by the Board as part of their expenses under this Act."

I do not think that this amendment will require any lengthy discussion. It is possible that the examination of the plans and designs may involve the employment of expert advice. The object of the amendment is to provide that any expense involved in that way shall not become a charge on State funds, but that it shall be borne by the promoters of the Bill.

Mr. FARREN

Simple as this amendment may appear, there is behind it a very big principle. I, with Senator Dowdall, was a member of the Joint Committee that considered this Bill. We were engaged on it for fourteen or fifteen days. All the details in connection with it were thoroughly investigated by the Joint Committee. The different interests concerned were represented before the Committee by a great array of counsel. The Committee, after a great deal of labour, arrived at what was practically an agreed Bill. It should be borne in mind that what this amendment means is that the ratepayers in what is known as the "bridge rate area" are to be saddled with any expense that may be incurred by the Local Government Department in examining the plans put forward in connection with the widening of Butt Bridge or the erection of the transporter bridge. I think that some consideration should be given to these ratepayers. The rate on the people comprised in that area, which embraces the city and the county of Dublin, will certainly not be less than 2d. in the £ on their valuations. There is the old saying, that it is the last straw that breaks the camel's back. I think it would be most unjust and unfair to mulct the ratepayers in the "bridge rate area" with whatever expense may be incurred by the Local Government Department in having the plans submitted in connection with these works examined. These ratepayers would have no control over the expense involved.

I think that the people in the "bridge rate area" are doing their share in helping to ease the transport situation in the city by contributing an additional 2d. in the £ on their valuations. It is unfair, after the thorough investigation that was made by the Joint Committee into this Bill, an investigation at which not only the Department of Local Government but other Departments of the State were represented, as well as all other interests concerned, to come along now and make these ratepayers responsible for any expenses that may be incurred by the Department of Local Government in examining plans submitted. This is a new principle that it is now sought to introduce into the Bill. It did not come before the Joint Committee. I do not think that it ought to be accepted, and I therefore propose to oppose it.

Mr. BARRINGTON

For once, I find myself in thorough agreement with Senator Farren. In my view, this amendment opens up a very much larger question than at first sight may be apparent. I am certain that both the Port and Docks Board and the Minister for Local Government are very well served by expert engineering advice. When proposals of this sort are put in, that the promoters of a special Bill of this kind can be saddled with the cost of further expert advice which in all probability may be quite unnecessary, the care is not always exercised in curtailing expense that would otherwise be the case. I very much incline to the view that the ratepayers might be saddled with expense under this Bill. I do not think for a moment that the Minister, of his own accord, would propose to saddle them, but representations might be made and pressure brought to bear to saddle them with more expense than would otherwise be necessary, and that in fact would be unnecessary. I, therefore, oppose the amendment.

Mr. DOWDALL

In view of the fact that this was practically an agreed Bill, I was very much surprised when I got those amendments. When I got the amendments I saw a gentleman connected with the Department of Local Government, and a gentleman employed by the Port and Docks Board. I learned that this amendment is merely a device, in case it should be necessary for the Local Government Department to call in consulting engineers, to meet the expenses incurred. Senator Farren is aware that, in the course of the proceedings before the Joint Committee, it transpired that when Butt Bridge was constructed it was then envisaged that possibly at some time in the future a widening of it would take place. In view of that, arrangements were then made to lay down foundations to carry the widened bridge. Many years have passed since then. It may be that these foundations are perfectly sound to-day, or it may be that they are not. In view of that, the Department of Local Government may think it desirable to call in a consulting engineer. The expense involved in that way will, I think, be comparatively small. In view of the fact that this is an agreed Bill, and as both parties are anxious to have the work involved carried out as soon as possible, and as both agree that the object aimed at in this amendment is not unreasonable, I will ask Senator Farren to withdraw his opposition.

Mr. GUINNESS

We have been told by Senator Farren that the approximate cost of the work in question will mean an addition of 2d. in the £ on the rates. I would like to know if that is the case.

Mr. FARREN

What I said was that the whole cost of widening Butt Bridge and the erection of a transporter bridge would certainly cost not less than 2d. in the £ on the ratepayers in the bridge rate area.

Mr. GUINNESS

I am sorry that I misunderstood the Senator's point.

Mr. FARREN

With regard to what Senator Dowdall has said, I would just like to make a few remarks. He referred to the foundations of Butt Bridge and the possibility that more money would have to be spent in connection with them. I would like to point out that provision is made in the Bill to meet a contingency of that sort. The point at issue here is this: that when the plans are submitted to the Department of Local Government that Department will be entitled to call in expert advice to examine them. The expense involved in calling in expert advice will come, not out of the pockets of the general taxpayers, but out of the pockets of the ratepayers in the city and in the county of Dublin who live in what is described as the "bridge rate area." I object on principle to that. For instance, if a housing inquiry is held in any particular district, and the Local Government Department sends down one of its inspectors to hold the inquiry, the expenses in connection with it are paid out of the pocket of the general taxpayer.

In my opinion, the ratepayers who reside in the "bridge rate area" which, as I have said, comprises the city and county of Dublin, are doing their part in helping to solve the transport problem in the city by agreeing to pay not less than 2d. in the £ on their valuations in connection with the works to be carried out under this private Bill. That surely is enough to saddle them with without adding the further expense that would fall on them under the operation of this amendment. That is my reason for opposing the amendment.

Mr. JAMESON

The position, as I understand it, is this, that if this amendment is not passed and the Department of Local Government is obliged to call in expert advice the expenses involved will fall on the general ratepayers of the country. What we are now trying to decide is, whether such expense should be borne by the ratepayers in the city and in the county of Dublin who come within the "bridge rate area," or by the general ratepayers of the country. Is that the Senator's point?

Mr. FARREN

Yes.

Mr. JAMESON

In that case of course, those of us who live in Dublin will probably vote with the Senator. I would like to hear the views of the Minister as to why this expense should not be a general charge on the country. I think it ought to be part of the duty of a Government Department to do this work and pay the necessary charges themselves.

Dr. GOGARTY

I would like to know what is the bridge rate. If it falls on those who live in the immediate vicinity of the transporter bridge, then I would like to point out that some of the very poorest people in the city are housed in that area.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The bridge rate is described in the First Schedule to the Bill.

Dr. GOGARTY

I see that it embraces the county and city of Dublin. I think that, inasmuch as the bridge cannot be limited in the advantages that it affords. Senator Farren's contention is perfectly right—that the incidence of the expense should not be limited to one definite area.

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

I think that Senator Farren is perfectly right in the plea that he has made on behalf of the ratepayers in the city and county of Dublin. In so far as an investigation by the Minister for Local Government is concerned, it is only right to point out that the expenses of the Minister's Department are defrayed out of the pockets of the general taxpayers. As far as I can see, if it should happen that the Department of Local Government think that expert opinion would be advisable in connection with the work to be done under this Bill, then, under Section 55 of the Bill, they have, as far as I can understand it, ample facilities for recouping themselves any money expended in the obtaining of that expert opinion. Section 55 states:—

All costs, charges and expenses preliminary to and of and incidental to the preparing, applying for and obtaining and passing of this Act or otherwise in relation thereto shall be paid by the Board in the first instance, but shall be charged to and repaid out of moneys to be raised or borrowed by the Board under the powers of this Act.

It seems to me that, so far as the Department of Local Government is concerned, the position is perfectly plain in the Bill. If it is necessary for the Department to obtain expert advice, they can do so, and as regards the expense they can go to the general taxpayer and ask him to pay the bill. Senator Farren is actuated by the desire to protect the interests of the ratepayers in the "bridge rate area," and I think that in doing so he is perfectly right.

Mr. KENNY

In the building of the Waterford bridge, 17 or 18 years ago, the principle was laid down that there was to be an area of contribution comprising several counties. The idea underlying the principle was that the people from these counties benefited to some extent by the use of the new bridge, as people from these counties attended the fairs at Waterford. They came from places as far away as Carlow, Wexford and Kilkenny. A proportion of the repayment of the sum expended in building the bridge was allocated over the counties for a term of years relative to the advantage which approximately the bridge gave to the people using the bridge. For instance, 25 per cent. of the expenditure was levied off the city of Waterford, 25 per cent. of the expenditure off the county of Waterford, and then there was a decreasing allocation going down as low as 4 per cent. as regards the counties farthest away. The same principle is involved here. The people in Connaught do not care whether there is a Butt Bridge there, or any other bridge crossing the Liffey. They are not going to get any direct or indirect benefit from it—not even from a bridge of gold across the Liffey.

If that principle which applied in the case of the Waterford Bridge, and bridges generally, is sound, it seems inequitable that people in far away places who could never, by any stretch of imagination, derive any benefit from the bridge, should be responsible as regards its cost, as they will be if any portion of the expense is to be borne out of the general funds. If the principle I have mentioned is applicable in one place, it ought to be in another, and it would give reason and substance for what is contained in Section 55 of the Bill, that the expenses should be borne by the people within a certain definite area, and people who will, in the ordinary course, derive benefit, some more and some less, from the re-construction of this bridge. I am absolutely opposed to placing any portion of the expenses in connection with this proposal on people other than those defined in the Bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

It surprised me to hear the speech of Senator Kenny, for it is practically analogous to the proposition that the people of Connaught have nothing whatever to do with the transport of goods out of Dublin for the convenience of commerce. The Senator says that it does not matter anything to these people, that no matter what the bridge was made for they have nothing to do with it, and therefore they ought not to be called on to bear even the most infinitesimal fraction of the cost. The very principle the Senator has advocated is already embodied in the scheme. The Minister comes in as representing the people of Connaught, and as representing the people of Waterford, Kerry and Dublin, and the country as a whole, and he wants to conserve the general public interests. He says: "I must have a supervising watch over the designs," as representing the public of the country as a whole and not the public of Connaught alone or of Dublin alone. He says: "I insist on my Department examining these schemes"; and then, "The City of Dublin and the surrounding area must pay for my Department's work." It is not quite correct for Senator Dowdall to assure us that this proposition refers only to the calling in of consultants. It may refer to that, but there is nothing confining the proposition to the payment of consultants. It refers to any expenses incurred. If a particular engineer at present in the Department of Local Government, a civil servant, was occupied for six months in examining the plans and designs, the expenses incurred by him, and his salary while engaged on that work, could, under that section, be charged against the scheme, inasmuch as it is a national proposition. The Minister speaks on behalf of the State as a whole, and claims supervisory authority. Then surely that is a debt that ought to be paid for out of State and not local funds.

Mr. BARRINGTON

I think we are wandering a little bit from the main point. Both the Department of Local Government and the Port and Docks Board are very efficiently and capably advised I am sure. It is absurd to say it is necessary to go to the expense of employing further advice when you have those advisors in these Departments. That is a matter that has been considered and threshed out over and over again. If an amendment of this sort finds its way into the Bill there will be less desire on the part of the Local Government Department to curtail expenses.

General MULCAHY

The Bill under discussion has been brought forward by a public board to enable them to do certain work. The Committee to whom the Bill was referred in the first instance decided in a certain way, that it was of definite interest to a certain area, over which it has said that the entire cost of the expense of this particular Bill and the carrying out of the work will be borne, except that a small portion of the cost of maintenance of the transporter bridge will be borne by the Port and Docks Board in the future. The cost of the passing of this Bill through the Oireachtas is not going to be borne by the taxpayer. It is going to be borne by the bodies that are made responsible for the payment of the work that has to be carried out, as well as the payment for the passage of this Act through the Oireachtas. The amendment which it is now sought to have inserted is to make this clear. In so far as the Department has a supervisory responsibility in certain matters, and has a certain staff for carrying out that, the service of that particular engineering staff, in so far as responsibilities are put on them by the Bill, will be available without any extra cost to anyone. Here is a Bill which is of special importance to a certain area. There are certain other special classes of work being done in this case arising out of local circumstances. The Department of Local Government has no engineering staff capable of saying whether a particular type of transporter bridge is suitable or not. An examination of the details of the plans of the transporter bridge would be necessary, and it may be that the Minister for Local Government when he comes to examine the plans may have to get outside assistance, and may have to employ a consulting engineer.

In so far as expenses are likely to be incurred outside the ordinary work and estimates of the Department for a matter specially connected with the city of Dublin and its environs, we consider that these are not normal charges to fall on the Department. They should not normally fall on the Department but on the ratepayers, and special charges like that should form part of the cost of dealing with this whole piece of legislation. It is rather stretching the point to say that the people of Connaught are concerned in this particular matter. If so why do we not have the area of charge spread as far as Donegal? The area of charge is a very definite matter. I take it that it marks the area of interest because so far as Dublin and its environs are concerned they amass wealth from the country as a whole in giving this particular service. If you are not going to saddle the taxpayer with the cost of getting this particular piece of legislation through the Oireachtas, then it is pointless to saddle him with any particular additional services that the Local Government Department may have to undertake because of the exceptional nature of the work that is to be done in connection with it.

Mr. GUINNESS

If this amendment is passed are we to understand that the cost of this additional advisory engineer will be borne by the ratepayers, or will the cost be borne by the State at large—or, in other words, by the general taxpayer?

General MULCAHY

The cost of carrying through this legislation will be borne by the ratepayers that are indicated in the Schedule dealing with the area of charge.

Mr. FARREN

May I point out to the Minister that the word "additional" does not appear in this amendment? It simply refers to any expenses incurred, but the word "additional" is not mentioned.

Amendment put and on a show of hands declared carried.

LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

Certain amendments have been put down in my name following the usual practice. Amendments 3 and 4 are related to one another, and they are of a purely technical character. Amendment No. 3 is: "To delete the words ‘for that purpose,' in line 22." The object of the amendment is to bring the provisions of the Bill into accordance with the practice according to which the Local Government Department has apportioned the amount of the Collector-General's annuity between the county and the city. The amendment of Section 32 is merely for the purpose of removing any doubt that the Collector-General's annuity is in future to attach to the bridge rate instead of the bridge tax, which ceases to be levied. I move the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

I move:—

Section 26. To delete the words "of the Bridge Rate required to be levied" in lines 26 and 27 and to substitute therefor the words "required to be levied for these purposes by way of the Bridge Rate."

Amendment put and agreed to.

LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

I move:—

"To delete all after the word ‘following' in line 28 to the end of the section."

Amendment put and agreed to.

LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

I move:—

Section 27, sub-section (1). To delete the sub-section and to substitute the following new sub-section therefor—

"(1) The Board shall apportion the amount so certified between the County Borough of Dublin and that portion of the County of Dublin included in the Bridge Rate Area according to rateable value as hereinafter defined and shall send to the Corporation a demand for the amount apportioned to the County Borough of Dublin and to the County Council a demand for the amount apportioned to that portion of the County of Dublin included in the Bridge Rate Area adding to the demand sent to the Corporation such sums (if any) as the Minister for Local Government and Public Health certifies to be the proportion of the Collector-General's annuity properly chargeable to the County Borough of Dublin in respect of Bridge Rate under this Act for the year to which such demand relates and adding to the demand sent to the County Council such sums (if any) as the said Minister certifies to be the proportion of the Collector-General's annuity properly chargeable to that portion of the County of Dublin included in the Bridge Rate Area in respect of Bridge Rate under this Act for the year to which such demand relates and adding also to each of such demands an amount by way of allowance as and for costs of collection and irrecoverable rates and office expenses which amount shall be equivalent to five per cent. on the amount to be raised as hereinafter provided pursuant to such demand and the Corporation and County Council respectively shall pay to the Board the amounts specified in the demand sent to them as aforesaid by equal half-yearly payments on the 1st day of June and 1st day of December in each year deducting from each such payment one half of the sum (if any) so as aforesaid certified by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in respect of the Collector-General's annuity and also one half of the said allowance of five per cent."

Mr. FARREN

May I ask for an explanation of this?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I understand the promoters desire the change.

Mr. FARREN

It appears to me an extraordinary thing that the Collector-General should be paid for something he does not do.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is arranged for in a previous section.

Mr. FARREN

As I have already explained, a Joint Committee went into this whole matter exhaustively, and representatives of the different Departments were present at the sittings of the Committee. I do not think it is fair to be making amendments now at this stage, and some explanation should be given.

LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

The Bill changes the original practice, and the amendment is for the purpose of reverting to the original practice. I think the text of the amendment explains its purpose.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

The Bill has not been circulated. The amendments are very intricate and the Bill is a complicated one. How we are to go through these amendments without the Bill I fail to see. I saw the difficulty of doing so without having a copy of the Bill, and I asked for it. I think very few of the Senators have got a copy of the Bill.

CATHAOIRLEACH

As regards that particular amendment, we will have to do something, because we have accepted an amendment cutting out portion of Section 26. That portion deals specifically with the amount to be paid of the Collector-General's annuity, and how it was to be allocated. It was intended to allocate it in a different way. I would like to point out that having already altered Section 26 as regards the provision of a method by which the annuity was to be paid, I think it would be unreasonable not to accept some form of amendment which would replace the part of the section which has been eliminated.

LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

I am informed that the procedure for the allocation of the Collector-General's annuity, as arranged for in Section 27, was a mistake in the drafting of the Bill, and that the procedure should be as set out in the amendment. The former practice was that it rested with the Minister for Local Government to apportion the amounts. The amendment is simply for the purpose of correcting a mistake made in drafting.

Mr. BARRINGTON

I am afraid I cannot share the mover's optimism in believing that he has made the matter perfectly clear. He has not made it perfectly clear to me at all events. Would the Senator kindly in a few simple words tell us how this amendment alters the section originally in the Bill?

Mr. GUINNESS

Would the Senator tell us who is the Collector-General and what exactly is his salary? Is it the salary of some individual?

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

I have had the opportunity of reading this Bill, and it seems to me that Section 27 as originally drafted was much more likely to be effective than the new section, which is very much longer, but, as the Cathaoirleach has reminded the Seanad, we have already done something which necessitates the acceptance of an amendment. What we are doing in this amendment I am afraid we do not know. Whatever happens, so far as this Bill is concerned the responsibility for any miscarriage or crux that will eventuate as the result of the change in Section 27 will lie on the head of Senator Kenny who has proposed the amendment. We take it from him that it is a good amendment.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Might I suggest in view of the fact that the Bill has not been distributed—

CATHAOIRLEACH

You are not quite conversant, Senator, with the procedure. Private Bills are not circulated. Any Senator who desires a copy may obtain it on application in the Private Bill Office. That is arranged for by Standing Orders. If the Bill is not in the hands of Senators it is because they have not asked the Examiner for a copy.

Mr. CONNOLLY

I have seen this amendment for the first time to-day. I have had no opportunity of securing a copy of the Bill, and if I had got a copy I had not the time to read it. We discussed an amendment a moment ago which clarified itself in the course of discussion. This amendment we are discussing now will not do so. I would like to get an intelligent view of it, and I submit we are not in a position to do that now. I would not be prepared to express any opinion on the amendment until I have seen the original section to which it refers.

Mr. DOWDALL

This Bill was examined by the Joint Committee which considered it in great detail. Counsel explained the position and went to a great deal of trouble in looking up Acts dealing with the questions involved. The matter was of a highly technical character. Members of the Joint Committee, I have no doubt, understood after counsel's explanation what was intended. They were not conversant with the details, nor would the counsel only they had Acts for reference. I am sorry there is no Senator who can get up and make clear the difference between a bridge rate and a bridge tax, but it was made perfectly clear to the Committee that this extension of the bridge was urgently necessary. The promoters of the Bill went to enormous cost, and they proved the urgent necessity of carrying through the widening of Butt Bridge. I would ask the House now to facilitate the passage of the Bill. Like Senator Farren, I was rather surprised when I got these amendments, but I consulted an official of the Local Government Department and an official of the Port and Docks Board, and they both assured me—and I might say I had a word with the examiner of Private Bills also, who is an honest broker between the two parties—that the amendments were superior drafting to what was in the Bill. I do not think the House should take the responsibility of holding up this urgent work.

Mr. FARREN

I have no desire to hold up the Bill. I am as anxious to facilitate its going through as any Senator, for I recognise the urgent necessity for dealing with the traffic problem, and it cannot be satisfactorily dealt with until this Bill becomes law. I do not object to the widening of Butt Bridge or the erection of the transporter bridge, both of which I believe to be necessary for solving the transport problem. My objection is that changes of the kind proposed should not be brought in now, having regard to the fact that the Committee passed the Bill after the most exhaustive investigation of its details.

After all that, considering that representatives of different Departments of the Government were present, and that the Committee had the Bill before them for months, that they had sent to them certain proposals with regard to amendments which the Committee agreed to and inserted, I think it is unfair at this stage to throw at us amendments such as these. In my opinion the amendment that we have passed was one that introduced a new principle, and that amendment I opposed. Senator Kenny said that this amendment was as clear as possible, but it is not very clear to me. As far as I understand it, the principle contained in the amendment is this: that the amount to be paid by the different areas, that is, by the County Council for the County area, and by the Corporation of Dublin for the City area, will be furnished annually to the Secretary of the County Council and the Town Clerk of Dublin. They will be told the amounts they are to collect. In the Bill it is being provided that the Board shall inform them of the amounts that they are to collect for each year. But the proposal in the amendment, as I understand it, if I do understand it, is that the Collector-General shall intimate to them the amount that they are to collect, and that after they have collected the money in the usual way, as all the rates are collected, either by payment in the office or to the rate collectors who call at the individual ratepayer's house and collect in half-yearly moieties, in October and at the end of the financial year, they are to pay 5 per cent. towards the expenses of the Collector-General's salary. If they do the work and if he does nothing, why should they pay for the Collector-General? If the ratepayers are paying the rate collectors to collect the rates, why should they pay 5 per cent. of the amount that is collected for the Collector-General's salary? As I said before, I am not sure whether I understand the amendment, but I am giving my views on it as I think I understand it at the moment. I think it is unwise, at this stage in particular, to introduce an amendment of this nature. I am somewhat familiar with the proposals, because I sat on the Committee; but it is unfair to other Senators who did not sit on the Committee, and who have not had an opportunity of studying the Bill. I think well enough might have been left alone, and that these amendments, which are bound to cause friction, should not be introduced. I do not want to postpone the Bill; there is nobody more anxious than I am that the Board should get these facilities and that the work should proceed.

Mr. JAMESON

In this case I agree with Senator Farren, and I think that Senator Dowdall has really stated what is the crux of the whole situation. It is quite evident that the draftsman has said that this is a better draft than that of the Bill. That is making this House more useful by giving an opportunity to the draftsman to get his best and latest ideas carried out, and that is all that the House is being asked to do. Nobody has said that this is altering anything; it is not a question of any rate falling on the whole country, or anything of that sort. But for the House not to take the advice of the draftsman, when he says that this is the right way to put it, is a thing that I think none of us would be justified in doing.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to support the point of view expressed by Senator Connolly. This may have been the draftsman's proposal—I have no doubt it is—but it is not the draftsman who will ever be held responsible; the Oireachtas would be held responsible, and while I have every confidence in the statement that this is a better draft, because this is the last thought in the matter, as has been pointed out, this Bill has gone through Committee after very careful consideration. Now it is brought to us in a new form, with very little explanation as to what that form means, and we have had no time to examine it for ourselves. It seems to me that the right thing to do in this matter is to give us at least another day to consider it, to postpone this discussion until to-morrow, so that we may have a chance to satisfy ourselves that there is nothing revolutionary in this amendment.

Mr. COMYN

I beg to support the suggestion made by Senator Johnson. We have, of course, great respect for Senator Dowdall, and his assurance was of great weight with us, but after all we must decide these things for ourselves. We have no assurance from Senator Dowdall, we have merely a statement from him that he has received an assurance from some official, but I think this House should not be satisfied with that, and that we should postpone consideration of this question until we see the Bill and get an opportunity of considering this amendment.

Mr. KENNY

I am quite willing to withdraw the amendments in favour of this proposal to postpone consideration of them, because I am quite sensible of the fact that Senators are at a very considerable disadvantage in not having the Bill before them. You cannot really see the point of an amendment unless you have the original text of the Bill before you to see in what respect it is proposed to alter the original text. In my position as Vice-Chairman I have no responsibility in this matter at all; I have only formally proposed these amendments, which were tabled in my name. I can quite see that they would eventually make for a better Bill, but if the Bill is to be improved in any way by the deliberations in this House, Senators should get full time to study the Bill in its present form and see the bearing of these amendments on the clauses concerned. Taking that view, I propose that consideration of the amendments be adjourned for a week, as the whole matter is, to my mind, very technical.

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

I second.

Mr. BARRINGTON

On a point of order. There is another amendment.

Mr. KENNY

I am proposing to withdraw them all.

Mr. JAMESON

Might I ask the Deputy-Chairman whether he now proposes to adjourn consideration of these for a week, so that every Senator shall get a copy of the Bill and consider it?

CATHAOIRLEACH

Yes.

Mr. JAMESON

We have just heard from the Chairman that the practice in Private Bill legislation is that Senators must apply to the Examiner of Private Bills to get a copy of a Bill. To adjourn this matter would eventually mean the annulling of Private Bill procedure, because it practically means that everybody who takes part in the debate must have a copy of the Bill and that every member of the Seanad must apply for one. We are altering in a very rapid and hurried manner our methods of Private Bill legislation, and I would ask the House to pause for a moment. I do not know much about this matter, but I do know that all our Standing Orders and regulations for Private Bill legislation were extremely carefully thought out, and for us in a hurry to adopt a motion to adjourn a matter like this so that we can study the Bill means putting a burden on this House which was never contemplated. It was never dreamt for a moment that we should take up and consider a Private Bill which has been threshed out by a special Committee, appointed to take this burden off the House, and that, when the Committee have threshed it out, as Senator Farren and Senator Dowdall have done, we should not take their advice at all, that we should proceed as if the Bill were an ordinary one.

Mr. JOHNSON

We are asked to depart from the advice of the Committee. That is the trouble. The Committee has sent the Bill back to us, and these are amendments to the Committee's advice.

Mr. JAMESON

I am not debating the question on those lines at all. The point I am making is that it is suggested that the House should adopt the principle that we should get copies of the Bill and study it. The reason it has been proposed that this matter be adjourned now is because we have not got copies of the Bill and we have not read it.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is one of the reasons.

Mr. JAMESON

Well, it has not been the practice, and the House is not supposed to take the burden on itself of reading Private Bills through and debating them in the House in the manner suggested. I would like to warn the House that this is a very serious thing, far more serious than it appears to be on a first inspection, because if we are to deal in this way with every Private Bill, if the House is to proceed to criticise it, to take no notice of the advice they get from the Committee that considered it, we shall be turning this House into a committee for Private Bill legislation, which is not what the House was intended for, and which is not a burden that, in my opinion, the House is capable of taking on itself. We really ought to take a far more serious view of this than to adjourn it with the avowed object that Senators shall get the Bill, read it through and debate it, paying no attention whatever to what the Committee has decided, after it has spent probably a couple of weeks of hard work on it. Supposing we give half an hour or an hour to reading the Bill, do you think we will be qualified to debate it and understand it as well as the gentlemen who sat for two or three weeks considering it? If that attitude is taken up you will ruin the chances of getting Private Bills brought forward and put through.

Mr. JOHNSON

I want to know if the Senator is in favour of the Bill as it left the Committee?

Mr. JAMESON

I am not talking about this Bill in particular.

Mr. JOHNSON

These proposals are to alter the Committee's decision without reference to what it decided. We want to support the Committee, while various amendments are put forward and we are asked to alter the decision of the Committee without being clear as to what the Committee did.

CATHAOIRLEACH

We must be very careful. I, as your Chairman, cannot allow any Bill to pass out of the custody of the Seanad until it is law. We retain custody of a Bill, and a Senator has an undoubted right to criticise a Bill at every stage. I cannot refuse a proposal from a Senator to adjourn consideration of a Bill, if the House so wishes, in order that it may study it. I agree with Senator Jameson, that in practice it is not very wise, but still I cannot refuse a motion to adjourn it. If it likes the House can now accept that proposal or it can reject it. If I might express a personal opinion, I agree absolutely with what Senator Jameson says. I think that in reality this is a storm in a teacup. This amendment is not of any danger to the whole scheme, it seems to me. You have already deleted in Section 26: "including such sum if any as the Minister for Local Government and Public Health certifies to be the proportion of the Collector-General's Annuity under Section 66 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, properly chargeable against the Bridge Rate under this Act and including the allowance of 5 per cent. specified in the next following section as and for costs of collection and irrecoverable rates and office expenses." If you look at what is on the Paper, you will see that the greater portion of it deals with specific matter which you deleted in the previous section, and the small portion at the end is of very slight importance. I would appeal to Senators to consider it now on its merits and to vote accordingly. Of course, the Bill is your Bill, and until you pass it you have complete power at every stage to consider it and to do what you like with it.

Mr. BARRINGTON

As one who has had very much experience in connection with Private Bill legislation, I should like to say that there is a very great danger indeed in interfering with the decisions of a committee which has had the advantage of having counsel before it, has had every point presented to it, and the pros and cons debated before it gave a decision. It has always been the practice in other places not to interfere with the decision of a Committee on a Private Bill except on some matter of very vital importance. You do not know what you are laying yourselves open to; you do not know what errors may be introduced by this practice of reconsidering a Private Bill.

Mr. KENNY

I am advised that the amendments which I have put forward were agreed amendments as between the promoters of the Bill and the petitioners against the Bill.

Mr. BARRINGTON

We never heard that before.

Mr. KENNY

I am so advised.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is so, I understand. I think that that will alter the opinion of some Senators.

Mr. FARREN

It does not alter mine. Notwithstanding what Senators say about the little time we spend here, I have spent time at home reading this Bill and it is my opinion that for the promoters and opponents to agree to amend all that the Committee had done previously is not a correct procedure.

Mr. JOHNSON

This is a very much more important thing than that. The Committee consisted of Deputies and Senators, and it had before it the promoters, the opponents, and private interests. The public interest is supposed to be looked after by the Deputies and Senators. The public interest is decided by the Committee, and the Committee reports. Then private interests —the promoters and the opponents— come together and they say: "Well, let us shake hands. We have a little bit up our sleeve. We have a few amendments to put forward," and because the promoters and the opponents agree the Seanad is to say nothing!

Mr. DOWDALL

What Senator Johnson has said with regard to the conflicting interests is absolutely and utterly inaccurate.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am speaking of the principle.

Mr. DOWDALL

Anybody who has sat on a Private Bill Committee of this nature knows that what happens is that substantial agreement on various vital matters is reached in open committee. That happened in this case, and then the various clauses, as amended, and the matters settled in the various clauses, were left with Professor Thrift, who was Chairman of the Committee, the Examiner of Private Bills, and the solicitors and counsel for the various interests concerned so that they could be drafted into the Bill. The Bill was in a rough stage, one amendment was very frequently consequential on another, and what was really dealt with in that way was the matter of re-drafting. Every detail of any consequence was agreed to, not only with the members of the Committee but with the parties who were promoting and opposing the Bill, and to say that this is introducing amendments of any substantial nature after the work of the Committee is finished, is, to put it mildly, a misstatement.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I may say that if I thought these were amendments of any substance I would have sent them back to the Committee. I do not think any of these amendments are of any substance.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

Perhaps some member of the Committee would explain to us who and what the Collector-General is. We never heard of him until now, and I think that ought to be explained.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Well, if he is not there he cannot get any money. That is one thing certain.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

Perhaps the office is not filled yet.

Mr. MacLOUGHLIN

I think the House should proceed with the amendment after Senator Dowdall's statement, and not consider the question of adjourning.

Question: "That the further consideration of the Report Stage of the Bill be adjourned until the next meeting of the House," put and declared lost.

CATHAOIRLEACH

We must deal with the amendments on the paper, then.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

Before this amendment is put, can we have an explanation as to who the Collector-General is and what his functions are?

Mr. KENNY

I asked that question and I could get no definite information, but that there is such a person, or that such an office will be brought into existence is the natural consequence of this Bill, inasmuch as he is pivotal. But I do not think that need interfere with our discussion at all. He either is or will be, and the amendment over which this conflict has arisen is, as I said before, a very simple one. It is simply a reversion to the old practice by which the Minister for Local Government, instead of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, as the Bill proposes, shall apportion the amount as between the County Borough of Dublin and the County Council of Dublin.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I cannot get you any further information with regard to the Collector-General.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

It is rather peculiar, if we are to pass the amendment, that we should not know who the Collector-General is.

Mr. DOWDALL

The office of the Collector-General was abolished by the Local Government Act, 1898, and the responsible officials for the collection of rates for the County Council and for the City Council of Dublin now occupy respectively the office previously occupied by the Collector-General, so that in fact the treasurers of these bodies constitute the Collector-General.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Mr. KENNY

I move:—

Section 32. After the word "Tax" in line 54 to insert the words:—

"including such sum if any as may be certified by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to be the proportion of the Collector-General's annuity which but for this section would have been properly chargeable to Bridge Tax under Section 66 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898."

This amendment is really for the purpose of removing any doubt that may exist that the Collector-General's annuity is in future to attach to the bridge rate instead of to the bridge tax. The bridge tax ceases to be leviable after the 1st April, and this amendment is simply for the purpose of clarifying the position.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

I would again ask for information about the duties of this Collector-General. The amendment speaks of the Collector-General's annuity. What is the annuity, and who is the Collector-General? I think it is rather unfair that we do not know. Is this a new position for this particular Bill, is it a position that already exists, or is it somebody that is to be appointed to collect the tax? In the old days we all knew how the bridge tax was collected. We got particulars on the ordinary rate form. It was collected by the local authorities, the same as the poor rate. If this is a new method and a new appointment I think the public should know about it.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Senator Kenny was not in charge of the Bill when it was going through.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

Who was?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I was. If anyone had an opportunity of knowing who the Collector-General was it would be Senator Dowdall. Senators Dowdall and Farren sat on the Committee, and they do not know.

Mr. COMYN

Perhaps the Minister would explain it to us.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (General Mulcahy)

I would like to say that I have no responsibility at all for this Bill.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Has Senator Dowdall any idea who is the Collector-General? The Senator has explained already that the duties were performed by the treasurers of the county council and the Corporation.

Mr. DOWDALL

That is so. The difficulty that presents itself to anyone looking at the two first pages of the Bill arises from the fact that a dozen special Acts of Parliament, from 1848 to 1920, are referred to. These Acts have been modified and altered from time to time, and the term "Collector-General" is now used to explain an official who was embodied in previous Acts whose duties are now performed by the treasurers of the county council and the corporation.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

Who is the Collector-General?

CATHAOIRLEACH

The treasurers of the county council and the corporation, whoever they may be—a bank manager, I presume.

Mr. COMYN

I would like to point out that it is apparent from this amendment that the Collector-General does not exist, and, moreover, is not really referred to. It is only his annuity is referred to. That is a salary that was payable under old Acts of Parliament to the Collector-General. It was an office that existed before the year 1898, and although the Collector-General does not now exist, his salary exists, and is paid to other people. I think what is meant is to preserve the salary and the proportions in which the salary was payable by the various rateable hereditaments. The bridge rate was one rate that contributed to that salary. As I understand, the amendment—I have not got the Bill—is simply to preserve the liability for payment of the proportions of the salary.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is so.

Mr. COMYN

There may be two or three people. I can only speak from recollection of Acts of Parliament that I have not read for a long time.

Mr. KENNY

The tax that was formerly in existence will cease after this Bill goes through on 1st April as a bridge rate is being substituted for it. The tax was for the upkeep of all the bridges crossing the Liffey up to a certain point. That proportion of the Collector-General's annuity was really paid by the Corporation as he was an existing officer. The amendment simply preserves the old practice and does not in any way alter the liability. The bridge rate will be substituted for the bridge tax and the bridge rate will cover a more limited area than the bridge tax. There is a slight difference in the Schedules but not very material. Otherwise there is no alteration in the ground work of the Bill. The bridge tax will cease to be levied after April 1st if the Bill passes.

Mr. FARREN

I think in view of the amendment that was previously passed there is no sense in refusing to pass this amendment. The bridge rate was levied to pay off outstanding loans that were used for the purpose of building bridges. The bridge tax was devoted to the maintenance and the improvement of the walls and the bridges. It is proposed in future that the bridge tax will cease to be levied, and that the expenses for the upkeep of the bridges will be incorporated in the bridge rate. That means that there will be one rate covering the repayments of principal and interest of loans that were borrowed for the building or extension of the bridges, as well as the amounts required for the maintenance of the quay walls and the existing bridges. In these circumstances I think there is no sense in refusing to accept the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to know what is the next stage of this Bill. I make a suggestion, perhaps, for consideration by the Committee of Procedure, that some rearrangement of proceedings regarding Private Bill legislation is absolutely necessary judging by this afternoon's experience. Bills are submitted by the Seanad to a Committee of the House.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The promoters have to give notice of the next Stage.

Mr. JOHNSON

Perhaps it might not be too far out of order to urge that some procedure should be arrived at whereby any change proposed in a Bill which has left the Committee ought to have a substantial backing and ought to be examined, either by the old Committee or by a new one, before it is brought up here, because it is obvious that we are placed at a complete disadvantage in being asked to examine a Bill which has been through the ramifications of a careful scrutiny of a Committee without knowing in the least the import or the value of the amendments that were embodied. I would urge that in any such case as this, where the House is asked to consider amendments that, without having ample notice, and without an opportunity of examining the pros and cons in Committee——

CATHAOIRLEACH

There is a Standing Order under which it devolves on me as Chairman to decide whether the amendments are of substance or not. I decided that these amendments were not. The Joint Committee on Standing Orders, if it so desires, can move an amendment to the Standing Orders dealing with the matter. They will probably hear the result of this. If they think it is essential to bring in a new Standing Order they can do so.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Report Stage concluded.