On the Second Reading Stage of this Bill I asked the Parliamentary Secretary whether he could not give us some figures as to the approximate cost of this measure to the ratepayers, and if he would look into the matter before the Committee Stage. At that time he said that I could assume that the total cost would be less than £100,000, all told. I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us, for the information of the House, some approximate figure to confirm what he said last week.
Fire Brigades Bill, 1939.—Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
This Bill is imposing a certain capital outlay and a recurrent annual expenditure. I am really more interested in the likely recurrent annual expenditure to be imposed upon the various governing bodies than I am in the capital sum to be spent for equipment in the beginning. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us an idea of the amount of the general outlay at the beginning, and as to what annual cost in total will be imposed upon the various councils who will operate under the Bill.
I mentioned last week on the Second Reading that I was somewhat perturbed—perhaps it was due to ignorance through not having read the Bill carefully—as to what will happen in the case of a voluntary fire brigade when there is an accidental and personal loss.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
This question might perhaps arise on a later section. It cannot be raised on this section. The question about expenses would arise more properly for discussion on Section 16, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would care to make a statement on it now, as it has been introduced.
I am afraid I cannot give the House any reliable indication of the probable expenditure under this Bill. As I stated on the Second Reading here, the cost will depend on a variety of circumstances that it is not possible to fully anticipate at this stage. For example, in an area that might be taken as a typical area, reasonable provision might already exist: the local authority may have incurred considerable expenditure in the past in providing fire fighting services. In such an area, the expenditure under this Bill would be small. In other areas, nothing has been done by the local authority in relation to this particular service and the expenditure in such an area will be correspondingly greater.
I might be asked if it is not possible for me to find cut in my Department the areas in which an efficient fire fighting service already exists. It is; I grant that. It is not, however, possible to anticipate to what extent the local authorities of the future will face up to this problem. The matter of expenditure will be primarily one for the sanitary authority—one sanitary authority may take a much more serious view of the problem than a neighbouring sanitary authority. The expenditure will also be related to the extent to which use is made of the provisions in the Bill providing for agreement as to the use of the fire fighting services of one sanitary authority by another. I hope that such agreements will be reached in many instances and that, in that way, it will be possible to avoid, to a very full extent, the duplication of services.
I have here the cost of the fire engine in a town of average size. This may be taken as a fairly safe indication of what the fire engine and accessories would cost in the average provincial town. The figure is £1,075. A tender for the erection of a fire station was approved recently at a cost of £409. These are definite figures that indicate, at any rate, the approximate cost of equipment and of housing the equipment. How far trained personnel may be employed on a permanent basis will again be a matter very largely to be determined by the local authority. One local authority probably will be satisfied with a very skeleton staff; another local authority —perhaps because of experience in the past or of dread of the future—will say: "This money is well expended and we will ensure that the lives and property in our area will be adequately safeguarded." I cannot give any further information to the House on that point.
On the question of the £100,000, I do not think that Senator The McGillycuddy looked upon that figure, in the exchanges that took place between us in the last debate, as being in any way a considered figure. I think he appreciates the atmosphere in which the figure of £100,000 was mentioned.
I raised this matter of expenditure in order, not to establish a principle, but to recall the Parliamentary Secretary and all of us to a certain principle, that is, that when we introduce legislation there should be some pre-vision of the cost. I do not want to be personal, but, after all, if the Parliamentary Secretary or myself goes to order a suit it is an elementary precaution to ask what that suit is going to cost, and where we are responsible to the general public and to the ratepayers, particularly in a time of great emergency in regard to money, such as this, I suggest that before a Bill of this scope was before the House a circular letter might have been issued to the sanitary authorities asking them to submit proposals for what they consider, in accordance with the words in the Bill, would be reasonable fire-fighting precautions for their area. If that had been done the Parliamentary Secretary would be able to come before this House and give us a very close figure of what the cost of the appliances is going to be—and may I draw attention to the fact that it will all be capital going out of the country—and further, the annual maintenance and the consequent cost to the ratepayers. That seems a very simple way of doing things, and it seems an astounding thing that this Bill has apparently gone through the Dáil without any inquiry as to what the final cost to the ratepayer is going to be. That is why I have raised the point. The Parliamentary Secretary has helped us as far as he possibly can. I am quite satisfied with that.
I expected rather more from the Parliamentary Secretary. Normally when a Bill is introduced which relates to activity carried out by a Department the Department has to include the expenditure in its estimates. In this case the expenditure is going to be farmed out to local bodies. As a matter of fact, their activity will be largely controlled by the Department. For instance, the Parliamentary Secretary states that he does not know how far there will be co-operation between one local authority and another. I presume his Department will more or less give orders in relation to that. Also, his Department, presumably, will watch to see that there is no wild unnecessary expenditure by any individual authority. Therefore, it does seem to me that his Department should have some idea of the cost. When you bring in a service like this, the general idea is that it is a splendid, beautiful service and no question should be asked about it. Always in life you have to take a certain amount of risk. An ordinary man insures himself against third-party risk in his motor car. The Army does not insure its motor cars because it has so many motor cars and, estimating the risk, decides that the premiums for insurance would be heavier than the cost per annum that might fall upon them through accident. In relation to fire-fighting, there are certain things that can happen that cannot be equated to any financial sum. For instance, you cannot equate loss of life to any sum of money, but it might easily happen, taking the average occurrence of fire in this country, that the diminution of damage brought about by the service we are going to inaugurate would be less, financially, than the sum we are going to spend. In all these things there is a certain amount of common sense. The question is, is it worth it? A person who is going to insure asks what the premium is and may decide that the premium is too high and decides to do without the insurance. In the same way this may mean a burden on this country—I do not know—that will be heavier than we have any need to provide on the incidence of fires in the country. If, as I say, this was going to be operated directly by the Department of Local Government, then that Department would have an annual estimate for both the initial expenditure and the annual expenditure thereafter.
I do not ask for too much from the Parliamentary Secretary, but I think he ought to have in mind where the men are going to be got, whether they are going to be volunteers or semi-volunteers. I know one city on the Continent where certainly there have been very big fires. It is a very well-known city and would count as a big sized city here. There are semi-volunteers there who get about £8 a year, and for that £8 they can be called upon at any time. I think if we are going to have full-time men it will be very costly. The Parliamentary Secretary might give us some idea of what he has in mind. He might take an average county and say what additional immediate and recurring annual expenditure will be involved. I think that bringing in a Bill like this absolutely in vacuo without any indication as to what the cost is going to be is not normal Government procedure. We are going to impose upon the people of this country a certain financial burden. It may be very good business to impose that burden, because the expenditure of that money would have such advantages that it would more than obliterate the consideration of the financial burden put on the people, but I do think we ought to have some general idea—it need not be too detailed—as to what we are imposing on the people that we can relate to the value of the service we are getting.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is understood that this discussion should have arisen on Section 16, on the expenses of sanitary authorities, and may not arise again?
That is understood.
Question put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put, and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
On Section 3, am I to understand, in relation to the question of cost, that the Minister has power to see that agreements will be concluded between sanitary authorities so as to provide not only for the most effective but for the most economic operation of fire-fighting services? One of the things the Parliamentary Secretary announced just now, in what the Chair indicated was a rather disorderly discussion, was that the cost of the services to local bodies would depend upon the agreements made. Does he take power here—and, if not, is there power anywhere else in the Bill—to see that there will not be a multiplicity of small services instead of a reasonably good service in an area not too big?
Under Section 3, if a sanitary authority desires to enter into an agreement with a neighbouring sanitary authority that already has provided a fire-fighting service, and that neighbouring sanitary authority refuses to enter into any such agreement, the Minister has power to come in and insist on an agreement being made.
But the initiative must be taken by the sanitary authority?
That is so.
But anybody who knows the geography of the country will know that in certain areas a fire brigade from another county would be much more useful in a particular border area than a fire brigade from the county itself. Take Tipperary, for example. A fire brigade in Limerick City might be better in that case than one from anywhere in Tipperary.
There is nothing to prevent it.
But, from the point of view of cost, whether the Minister has power to divide the areas or whether it is left entirely to local bodies, if local body A takes the initiative and if local body B does not agree, then the Minister can compel local body B to agree?
That is so.
But supposing that neither takes any initiative: suppose local body A has its own fire brigade for its area and suppose local body B has its own fire brigade, the Minister cannot say to them: "You know the circumstances; would not this be a better arrangement?" Can he not even suggest that to them?
I think in such circumstances as Senator Hayes outlines, we would have to rely on Section 5, which provides that any person feeling aggrieved can make complaints to the Minister, and then the Minister will take the initiative.
Does not that refer to general failure rather than to failure to provide the most efficient and cheapest service? I have not read that very carefully, but I thought that when I was reading it before.
Does not the power exist under Section 2 which makes it mandatory on a sanitary authority to make arrangements for fire fighting
That does not entirely meet the point made by Senator Hayes.
If help has to be called in from a neighbouring county; if the ratepayers in Cork, for instance, are called on to support the fire brigade in County Cork, and Waterford has to call on it for help, the Cork ratepayers may object to supporting a fire brigade that is used for County Waterford.
On whom rests the responsibility for putting into operation this Bill, presuming it becomes law very soon?
On the sanitary authority.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
That question does not arise on this section.
It may seem somewhat presumptuous to raise any question on this matter affecting the Six Counties, but it seems to me that this question does affect the Border counties. Take, for instance, Pettigo, where one side of the street is in Northern Ireland and the other is in the Twenty-Six Counties. Is there any possibility of an arrangement between——
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Some of these are matters that should have been raised on the Second Reading.
Might I submit that, as we are discussing the way in which sanitary authorities are to arrange between themselves, we might be able, at least, to explore avenues for suitable co-operation amongst these authorities, and even to go so far as to ask whether the Minister ought not to have some power in this regard? Senator Mrs. Concannon referred to the position in the Border counties. When I was speaking of Border counties, I was thinking of a case such as Senator Goulding mentioned, in which Cork and Waterford would be interested. Take Roscrea as another example, or Clonmel. Clonmel might have a fire brigade of its own, but the fire brigade for the county might be in Nenagh. If Clonmel has not got a fire brigade of its own, it is nearer to Waterford than anywhere else. I am not a member of a local body, and I do not know what the outlook is for a member who may be anxious to localise the position. There may be power in the general Local Government Acts, which would enable the Minister to make certain suggestions, at any rate, to the local bodies on this point.
Although I may not be strictly within the rules of order, might I be permitted to raise one point, even if I have to depart from the rules of order? I asked the Minister on whom the responsibility rested for the enforcement of the Act. If it has to be enforced this year I think some consideration should be given to the fact that the estimates of local bodies have been already considered and finally determined. The sanitary authority in my county would be the board of health, and there we have to face an increase in the estimate of £54,000. Since the Minister has not given any clear indication as to the financial commitments which will be imposed on my county, I want to know if this Act is to be enforced this year. We do not know what are the financial commitments which will be imposed on each board, and I wanted to get some information on that point.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
That matter will arise on Section 19. It does not arise on Section 3.
I do not know if I can give any further explanation than I have already given. Senator Hayes has in mind the possibility where A might desire to enter into agreement with B, and B might decline to enter such agreement. B might in fact, from a geographical or other standpoint, be the best sanitary authority with which A could enter into such agreement. The Senator wants to know could the Minister intervene at that stage. If B declines to enter into agreement with A, A appeals to the Minister. The Minister could at that stage, having examined all the circumstances, suggest that A should enter into agreement with C, and a more suitable arrangement could be made in that way. I think that in the framework of the Bill we have power to safeguard the position we have in mind.
I think, if the Minister has not the power, he might consider whether he would not amend the Bill to enable him to meet a situation such as Senator Hayes has mentioned. The Minister should have power to require some other sanitary authority to provide the service if he were satisfied——
He has power.
I understood from the Parliamentary Secretary that it could be done within the framework of the Bill, but that it would have to be done by suggesting to the first sanitary authority that they could approach somebody else. It seems to me that he should take power to approach the other sanitary authority himself. Of course, he has power to make the suggestion, but he has not power to make the first sanitary authority approach any other one, and I think he should have that power.
I think he has that power even within Section 2. In Section 2 a sanitary authority is under a statutory obligation to make reasonable provision. The question of what is, in fact, reasonable provision has ultimately to be determined by the Minister. If a sanitary authority sets out to make an arrangement that is not a desirable arrangement, or is not a reasonable provision the Minister will say: "You must proceed in another direction."
I think there is some doubt about that. However, it is not a bad answer for the moment, but it would not do for a law examination. He would not get honours on it. He might get a pass.
A pass will do to-day.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
What is the meaning of the words in the section, "receives a complaint in writing"? Does that mean that any person can make a complaint in writing?
Yes. Originally, in the draft that passed the Second Reading in the Dáil, provision was made for a complaint by not less than 20 persons. There was some criticism of that, and I think it was Deputy Cosgrave expressed the viewpoint as to the difficulty of getting 20 persons to take the initiative. The fact that you had to get a complaint by 20 persons might vitiate the intention of the section, so at a subsequent stage an amendment was moved providing that the complaint might be made by any person.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(3) The following provisions shall apply and have effect in relation to every fire precautions notice served by a sanitary authority, that is to say:—
(a) every such notice may be served on the proprietor of the building to which it relates by sending it in a prepaid registered letter addressed to him at the said building.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (3), page 6, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute a new paragraph as follows:—
(a) where such notice is addressed to the proprietor of the building to which it relates by his name, it may be served by delivering it to such proprietor or by delivering it at the said building to a person over the age of 16 years who is resident or employed in the said building, or by sending it in a prepaid registered letter addressed to such proprietor at the said building.
In the Bill as passed by the Dáil, there is provision for the service of a notice on the proprietor of a potentially dangerous building by sending it to him by registered letter addressed to the proprietor at the building in question. On further consideration it has been represented to me that difficulty might be experienced in effecting delivery in such an event, and the amendments are moved accordingly. These amendments have been circulated following consultation with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (3), paragraph (b), page 6, line 41, after the word "him" to add the words "and may be served by delivering it at the building to which it relates to a person over the age of 16 years who is resident or employed in that building, or, if no such person can be found, by affixing it in a conspicuous position on the said building."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
I think this is the most important section of the Bill. I am a believer in the old saying that prevention is better than cure, and I should like to have definitely inserted in the Bill a provision that the person who will be the authorised officer, for purposes of inspection, shall be a fully qualified person. If we are to have a number of small fire brigades throughout the country, it is quite possible that the officer in charge of a brigade may be a man who, while being very efficient as an officer, may not have the necessary experience of inspection work, and may not be able to suggest to the people whose premises are being inspected the alterations that would put them in proper condition and obviate the danger of fire. I suggest that the section should be amended to provide that the person appointed will be an engineer, because I think it very important that the man selected for this purpose should be fully qualified.
It is assumed that, in most instances, the sanitary sub-officer would be the authorised officer under the Bill. I quite appreciate the point made by the Senator, but the sanitary authorities have at their disposal already, for consultation purposes, an engineering staff, and if the sanitary authority, as the fire brigade authority, require any technical advice in the operation of this measure, it will be available without the necessity of specifying that only such and such a person with such and such qaulifications can be appointed as authorised officer. It is assumed, as it has been assumed in the case of many other measures, that sanitary authorities will exercise a sense of responsibility and will only appoint an authorised officer who is competent to discharge the duties which will fall to be discharged under the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
There are pretty extensive powers of pulling down buildings which are not necessarily on fire but the pulling down of which is considered necessary in order to deal with the original fire. I suppose the Parliamentary Secretary is quite satisfied that that would not affect insurance, that is to say, if a building is not on fire but is pulled down in the belief that it is necessary to pull it down in order to extinguish the original fire, is there any danger that an insurance company would say that that did not come under the heading of fire? If a building is partly affected by water, an insurance company generally recognises that to be the same as fire. I have had actual experience of that myself, but there is just a doubt, and I should like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that he will look into the matter and see that it is covered.
This point has been fairly exhaustively examined in connection with certain amendments moved in the Dáil and I think the position is as clearly set out in the Bill as draftsmanship permits. Speaking as a layman, I confess that it is not very clear to the lay mind, but the position appears to be—so my legal advisers tell me and I must accept their interpretation of the draft—that if a fire occurs in building A and it becomes necessary to destroy, demolish or otherwise damage building B, if B is, in fact, covered by insurance the insurance policy would cover such consequential damage as arose not through fire in B, but through the efforts to control the fire in A.
All I wanted to know was that sub-section (3) was the result of a legal investigation.
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 10, 11 and 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 3:—
At the end of the section to add the words:—"The conditions of employment shall provide that officers and servants employed under this section shall undertake not to withhold their services because of a dispute until at least two months after such dispute shall have been submitted to the Minister for his advice by the sanitary authority and it shall be obligatory on a sanitary authority to so submit any dispute on the request in writing of not less than one-third of the employees in any fire brigade under its control."
The section provides that the power of engaging the personnel of local fire brigades is left to the sanitary authority, and it seemed to me, in view of certain events which have taken place in our recent experience, it was highly desirable that some provision of a reasonable character should be made to prevent hasty strikes. I think it was probably a matter of very considerable surprise to most people that it was legally possible for a fire brigade to go on strike, and it is not at all clear to me why, if it is illegal for civil servants and for the Army to go on strike, a body such as a fire brigade, which may be vital not only to property but also to life, should be in a position to leave a city like Dublin, as did happen for some time, with a skeleton fire brigade. The amendment I move, and which I hope will be accepted, does not go so far as to make a strike by a fire brigade ultimately illegal. Apparently the position at present is that it is legal, and I am not proposing that we should take that right from them, at any rate until we are quite clear that there is no other way out that would not be subject to abuse.
The essence of the amendment is to provide that the conditions under which men shall be recruited for a fire brigade will provide an undertaking by them that they will not go on strike until at least two months after the sanitary authority has submitted the matter of dispute to the Minister, and the Minister has been given an opportunity to suggest a way out. That is a moderate proposal, and one which I think ought to be accepted. The one thing I feel sure of is that the public would expect us, when a Bill of this kind is before us, to endeavour to profit by experience and to make some such provision. I do not think it needs very much argument. The case is clear to us all, and I suggest that my amendment is reasonable, though I am not in any way tied to the words of the amendment.
I support the amendment. I raised the point on the Second Reading and I think it of the greatest importance, because two of the outstanding principles for the prosperity of a country are the preservation of peace and the preservation of property. I think that something on the lines of Senator Douglas's suggestion is the only way to ensure it.
It is unfortunate that this amendment should come before the House at present. I have been speaking to a number of my colleagues and we are in sympathy with the amendment up to a certain point. I think it would be worth while, for the sake of unanimity, if Senator Douglas would withdraw his amendment and re-submit it in altered form on the Report Stage. We realise the importance of having a fire brigade which can be relied upon, in the case of fire, to do their duty; at the same time, we recognise that fire brigade men have certain rights as well as responsibilities, and an allowance of time, say, a month or two, to adjust any legitimate grievance they may have does not seem excessive to us. In view of that, I think that if the Senator withdrew his amendment now he would get unanimity on it on Report Stage as far as the words "sanitary authority". To that extent it is quite acceptable to our people, but the remainder would, I think, lead to complications and misunderstandings.
At any rate, I think he admits that the amendment was rather hurriedly drawn up, and perhaps an amendment might be prepared and submitted in the meantime which would eliminate all recriminations or references to the situation existing in the City of Dublin at the present time. If the Senator would agree to re-submit an amendment on these lines for the Report Stage, I think it would be worth while to do so.
I would ask Senator Douglas to agree to the proposal that has been made because I understand from what Senator Foran has just said that he has no objection to the principle involved here. I can quite see the Senator's objection to this particular case being discussed at length in the special circumstances existing at the moment, although it is because of these existing circumstances that this has arisen. However, I take it that this matter will not be finished to-day and that the Bill is not a matter of urgency, and I feel that if an amendment of this kind were to be passed unanimously and with the support of Senator Foran and his friends it would be of much greater value than any other type of amendment which would not receive such unanimous support. I suggest that the putting down of this amendment has already done a great deal of good and that, if it is only a question of the wording of the amendment, this particular amendment should be postponed to the Report Stage.
I am quite prepared to postpone the amendment with the permission of the House, until the Report Stage, or, with the permisison of the House, to delete the words after the word "authority". Either course would meet with my approval.
Before the amendment is withdrawn, Sir, I think it would be interesting to get some indication from the Government as to what their views upon it are.
So far as the amendment before the House is concerned, I could not recommend the House to accept it. I cannot express an opinion on a further amendment that, we are told, will be submitted at a later stage, until I see what form that amendment takes. It seems to me, however, that if the principle is a desirable one to be embodied in our code of laws, it ought to apply to other essential services as well as fire fighting.
Might I point out, Sir, that this only deals with fire brigades, and I do not think it is right to introduce other matters into the debate.
As I was saying, Sir, I believe that if such a principle is to be adopted by the Government or by this House, it ought to have uniform application to the essential public services, and to my mind the essential service of maintaining a water supply is of even greater importance, and considerably greater importance inasmuch as a supply of water is essential to all members of our community, rich and poor, and a fire fighting service cannot be maintained if a water supply is not available. Consequently, I want to put to the House the viewpoint that, while the whole principle behind this amendment is one that ought to be examined—and it is a very important matter—it ought not to be examined in a piecemeal manner. It ought to be examined in relation to the entire problem of the sudden dislocation of essential public services. The matter of trade and labour disputes is not in my particular sphere. It is a matter for the Minister——
Mr. Foran rose.
I think Senator Foran should be as patient with me as I have been reasonably patient with him. As I was saying, it is a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and whilst we are in the position now that this amendment may be withdrawn, with the suggestion that another amendment will be moved at a later stage, all I can tell the House is that I am opposed to this amendment, and cannot indicate what my reaction to the new amendment will be until I see it in actual draft.
In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, it seems to me to be perfectly obvious that I should withdraw this amendment with the permission of the House, but I want to make it clear that I hope to submit another amendment, if possible, in agreement with Senator Foran's suggestion, and I should be very much surprised if I should not be able to do so. In the meantime, I would urge the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary not to adopt hastily the line the Parliamentary Secretary is now taking. At the moment it would appear that we have one particular problem on which there is a possibility of a measure of agreement between people who do not by any means always agree, and the basis of that agreement is a recognition—if I understand Senator Foran rightly—of a duty to the public on the one hand and, on the other hand, and on my part at any rate, not to remove certain rights that have been recognised. If the Government intend to deal with a similar principle in relation to a water supply, they will certainly have my blessing, and the sooner the better, but there are many other matters, and water is not the only one. I hope that I shall be able to deal later on—possibly to-day—with the principle involved in some of the matters raised by the Parliamentary Secretary, but I think that when we have a Bill on which such a matter as this can be dealt with, we should deal with it and should be allowed to deal with it. If and when a general Bill is introduced later, and if that Bill is in a form which will supersede any section of this Bill, it is the simplest possible thing to put in a provision that the particular part of the section is amended accordingly. Where I differ with the Parliamentary Secretary is that I think it is a wrong attitude of the Government to say that, when an amendment is proposed, on the principle of which there is agreement, nothing can be done until you have time to think out all the problems involved. I think that is a mistake. However, if the House agrees, I propose to withdraw this amendment with a view to introducing another amendment on the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
This seems to be a rather dangerous paragraph. As Senators will see at the end of it, the money borrowed under these borrowing powers is not to be reckoned as being part of the debt of such authority for the purpose of any limitation on borrowing imposed by the former Acts. We know that the situation existing in a great many counties at present is that they have borrowed almost to the limit of the legal provision, and as, during the last few months the cost of living has gone up very considerably— and is likely to go up a great deal more —they have, in actual fact in relation to the banks and to their security, borrowed a good deal beyond their assets. Over and above that, a great many of them have got heavy overdrafts, and the increased cost of living has meant large arrears of rates, a great deal of which will become entirely unrecoverable under present circumstances. It seems to me, therefore, to be very dangerous to extend the present powers which the county councils and sanitary authorities have for borrowing money, and so put the payments for new things of this class on the long finger.
Senator the McGillycuddy apparently has missed the same principle in Bills which have been before the House. Perhaps I am wrong in that but, at any rate, the same principle has been incorporated in other measures passed through the House, and I understand that so far it has escaped. The position that the section is intended to safeguard is the case where a sanitary authority had already reached the limit of its borrowing powers, and had not made any provision for a fire-fighting service. It is probable that such instances will be few, but the House will agree that a case might arise where it may be very desirable to provide a fire-fighting service in an area and, if the sanitary authority cannot borrow for the purpose because of the fact that its borrowing powers have already been exhausted, then a fire-fighting service cannot be provided. The fact that such a provision is made does not mean that a large proportion of our sanitary authorities are on the verge of bankruptcy or have exhausted their borrowing powers. That is not the case, but I do think it is desirable that such a provision should be incorporated in the Bill, and we may all join in the hope that it will not be necessary to avail of it.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary is mistaken, as the Senator has certainly not missed this provision in legislation.
I am sorry.
I have always rather objected to going above a point which the assets of the rates allow, and I still think it is an unwise plan, but I do not question it any further just now.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."
This is the question of the expenses. Whether the money is found by borrowing or by an addition to the rates——
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I thought this was not to arise again, this point having been discussed on Section 1.
The particular point I wish to raise now has not been discussed. This means additional expenditure and additional rates, and there is a point as to who could possibly benefit from these services. Obviously, it is the people living in the towns and in the big villages where there is a water supply who can definitely benefit, but thousands of farmers —big and small—who have not got water appliances of any sort or kind may not benefit; yet, under the general provisions in this Bill, they will have to foot the bill and the incidence will come on them exactly as it will on the others. In the case of various sanitary authorities, there are going to be very different circumstances, owing to their geographical position.
Again, the incidence is going to be very different in many cases owing to the rateable value of the different authorities—as we know, they vary all over the country from 5/- to 22/- —and some consideration should have been given to this matter with a view to making a grant from a Government fund where this cost is going to be pressed on the sanitary authority. I do not for a moment say that, if we can afford it, it is not desirable there should be some form of fire appliances, but I think this is a very big point which should be considered. In the case of the fire brigade, where only certain people can possibly benefit, the principle of the imposition of a general rate is quite a different thing to where it is a question of roads or hospitals or medical services and, therefore, I think a different procedure should be adopted and a grant should be given in certain circumstances, where the cost is going to be excessive, from the Central Fund.
Fires occur in rural districts as well as in urban districts, and cases might occur where the services of the fire organisation would be needed to put out a fire in a farmer's premises. Haystacks have been known to go on fire and very often they, and also farm buildings, cannot be saved because no fire fighting apparatus is available anywhere in the neighbourhood. Those of us who come mainly from rural districts are always facing the opposition from the farming section of the people because they are taxed for the supply and support of an amenity that is only of use in the urban areas. Unfortunately, when you have to provide these things, you cannot confine the taxation to the smaller towns and villages only; you have to make it a county service and then it is available for the large farmer as well as for the urban dweller.
The situation seems to have changed somewhat recently. I cannot visualise any small town which has an urban authority having a fire fighting appliance at all. That is a reply to Senator The McGillycuddy. The county authority or the county council will not be responsible so much at all, but, fortunately for themselves, the urban authority and the sanitary authority will have to establish these fire brigades. I was troubled originally regarding the expense of the matter.
I can visualise, in our own town or any town like it, that you can possibly afford to have only what you may call a voluntary fire brigade there with a sanitary officer as leader. He is in charge of the waterworks and would, I suppose, have the borough surveyor as technical adviser. Even a voluntary force of that kind will call for some expenditure.
What I had in mind was the question of providing for cases where there may be personal loss such as that which I mentioned earlier. I have known voluntary fire brigade men to lose their clothes or render them entirely useless for the future. Possibly, an accident may occur. What provision has been made for that sort of thing? I was anxious to find that out, as somebody must be made responsible. Even though a man may be only a voluntary fireman, if he should lose his life or become seriously injured or damage his clothing during the course of a fire, somebody has to be responsible for him, as well as for his personal loss without injury. But I can see at once that it is on the urban authorities much more than the sanitary authority of the county board of health that the great responsibility will fall. Perhaps the smaller towns will arrange with the urban authorities for the use of fire brigades. A little clarification is needed as to how the expense is to be met. That is the only point I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain.
The Fourth Stage of this Bill is going to be postponed until after Easter. Would it not be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary, before he replies, to make investigations on the two points that have been raised, namely, by a calculation of county by county to arrive at a maximum figure which will not be exceeded as the total cost to local bodies, and also to see whether he has sufficient powers in the Bill to ensure that, by a certain combination of local authorities, where that is thought proper, the expense will be reduced and, of course, at the same time, possibly, the efficiency increased. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make investigations on these two points— the maximum cost, and whether there is sufficient power in the Bill to ensure that there will be both economy and efficiency where there are overlapping authorities or borders that do not correspond with what would normally be described as proper areas for a fire fighting force?
I think there is some confusion of thought regarding this particular section and, in fact, I think regarding the entire Bill. I do not know if I am right in assuming that some Senators appear to be under the impression that the initiative will rest largely with the rural sanitary authority. In my opinion, the rural sanitary authority will incur very little expenditure under this Bill. The normal development would be that the town that is best situated geographically and that has at present the best fire fighting service already established will become the hub of the fire fighting service of that county. As I said at an early stage in the debate, one efficient fire fighting service in a county may be found to meet the full requirements, and the obligations of the sanitary authorities in the smaller towns and villages and in the rural areas will be met by entering into an agreement with the sanitary authority that has equipped and is maintaining an efficient fire fighting service. Where it will be possible to have such agreements in any area where an efficient fire fighting service can be got within a reasonable distance—such agreements will be undoubtedly possible— the cost to a neighbouring sanitary authority of securing the use of that fire fighting service will be exceedingly small, comparatively.
I think that it was Senator The McGillycuddy who suggested that because of the fact that a water supply will not be available in a rural area, rural sanitary authorities or, at least, the people living in a rural area will derive very little benefit under the terms of this Bill. I do not agree with him in that, mainly for this reason, that there is something more at stake in fire fighting than merely turning on the hose. The fact that skilled fire fighters will be available for rescue work and for controlling the outbreak is, to my mind, an important feature of the Bill. It is true that in most rural areas an adequate water supply will not be available, but it is at least equally true to say that the availability of an efficient and trained fire fighting machine will be a great asset and protection to people living in a rural area and, I think, would be well worth what it would cost. But, normally, the rural area will be served by the urban area by virtue of an agreement entered into between the two sanitary authorities.
Senator Honan raised the question of loss of life and personal loss by persons engaged in fire fighting. I think the loss of life or personal injury would be covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It will be open to sanitary authorities to make provision in their schemes for personal loss such as damage to clothing and the other matters that the Senator mentioned.
I think I have already dealt with the points again raised by Senator Hayes. The general purpose of the Bill is to secure co-ordination, reduction of costs and a more efficient service, if it can be done. I think that that degree of co-ordination that might appear at the moment to be almost impossible will be rendered not only possible but easy of development under the managerial system because the county manager will be the chief executive officer of all the sanitary authorities within his county. So that I think we will get the co-ordination in that way that on the face of it would appear difficult to get otherwise.
I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary has not quite convinced me on the question of the general charge. I give a concrete case of a farmer living a distance from the town, with a haystack and a thatched roof quite close to each other, and the wind blowing in the direction of the house. He has very little chance if his hay catches fire. He has got to get a horse and trap to go in for the fire engine, or whatever appliance there is there. That man is going to pay probably more towards the cost of this scheme, according to his valuation, than the man in the town with the hydrant opposite him, whose fire can be put out at once. Time is an enormous factor. I am not convinced, therefore, that the man who is a distance from the main hydrant and from quick assistance should pay on the same basis as the man in the town who is quite close to it. I would suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should reconsider the matter to some extent, and have a smaller charge for the people outside a certain distance from the central organisation. That is a point I want to make about it.
Might I say, in further explanation to Senator The McGillycuddy, that the man in the rural area will not, in fact, pay the same as the man in the urban area, because the rural area normally will not be maintaining a fire-fighting service. The urban area will, but the rural sanitary authority, by virtue of agreement with the urban area, will have the use of the fire-fighting service in the urban district, and the rate will be comparatively small in the rural area for the use of the service as compared with the rate on the urban area, where the service has to be built up, established and maintained. In fact, in one area such an arrangement already operates in Cork, where the rural sanitary authority has entered into an agreement with a neighbouring urban authority, and the cost on the rural authority is, I think, three-twentieths of a penny in the £. At any rate, it is small, as compared with the cost on the urban area.
As compared with 17-20ths in the urban area?
I was under the impression that it was higher in the urban area.
Section put and agreed to.
Sections 17 to 19, inclusive, and the Schedules, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
I understand that the House desires to leave it over until after Easter.
I understand that Senator Douglas wants an opportunity to deal with that amendment or to reconsider it. Therefore, I submit, we should take it after Easter.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 3rd April.