Local Government (Sanitary Services) Bill, 1947—Second Stage.

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

This is an interim measure pending a more comprehensive examination of the legislation governing sanitary matters and sanitary services and also pending a further consolidation of the existing law. On the formation of the Ministry of Health it became necessary to separate the sections of the Health Bill which related to measures for improving and maintaining sanitary services and creating a sanitary environment from those sections concerned with the maintenance of conditions conducive to public health. This Bill is a result of that separation. The Bill provides for the development of improved standards of sanitation. Now that advances have been made generally in regard to health and hygiene, it is felt most desirable that standards in regard to sanitation should also be improved throughout the country. It is not possible for us to get a complete consolidation of the sanitary law at present but in this Bill the code has been divided into separate subjects and consolidation can be effected by stages. There are seven distinct Parts in the Bill.

Parts II and III relate to sewerage and water supplies. It is our intention to strengthen the powers of local authorities in regard to the connection of premises throughout the country with public sewers and water supplies. In the last 15 years, 350 sewerage systems have been installed and 500 water supply systems have been constructed throughout the country. At the present moment, 190 such schemes are in course of preparation and in course of planning. Others will be coming along in the near future. The legislation regulating the connection of premises either with a sewerage system or a water supply is wholly obsolete having regard to modern standards of hygiene. At present owners of premises may be compelled to connect their drainage to the public drainage system only if not even a minimum of drainage exists. The intention of this Bill is to ensure that such owners be compelled to connect their premises, save under appeal to the Minister, even if they have systems such as cesspools or other systems of drainage which do not conform with modern hygienic practices.

A simplified procedure has been introduced in this Bill in regard to this matter. Owing to the fact that there has been a great deal of litigation in the past over the responsibilities of owners for joining their sewerage system with the public sewerage system, it is impossible for us at this stage to say whether the procedure as outlined in the Bill will be entirely successful, and the Minister envisages a continuing examination of this whole matter and of later bringing before the Oireachtas a further Bill, partly in the light of the experience gained, partly as a result of being able to effect further consolidation, and partly because we are not yet satisfied that this Bill will do all we want it to do. We do think that it is very important that local authorities should be able to begin the work of improving sanitation immediately.

Under the Bill sanitary authorities may require owners of premises to carry out specified works for the connection of their premises with the public sewerage, for the connection of separate premises or for connecting premises having some common connection with one another. That applies both to sewerage and water supplies. If, in the course of the works required for making connections, more than 100 feet of water supply pipes or more than 100 feet of sewerage drains have to be laid, the sanitary authority will provide the costs in excess of that 100 feet If a number of houses are to be connected to a common drain, the sanitary authority will be responsible for the cost of laying the drain in excess of 100 feet for each premises. If a number of premises belonging to the same owner are to be connected, the local authority will be responsible for the construction of the length of drain represented by the excess over 100 feet multiplied by the number of premises. In other words, if there are five houses owned by the same person and the total length of drain for connection purposes is 600 feet, the owner will pay for 500 feet (5 × 100) and the sanitary authority will pay for the excess of 100 feet.

Part II of the Bill requires some explanation particularly in respect to Sections 10 and 11. Under the Act of 1878, drains constructed for joining more than one premises to a public sewer were vested in the sanitary authority and the sanitary authority became responsible for such repairs as were necessary. I want to make that quite clear. Where there was a public sewer running along through a particular area and a number of houses became connected by another side drain with the sewer, the sanitary authority was made responsible for the upkeep, maintenance and repair of these drains. As a result a legal distinction arose between the term "sewer" and the term "drain."

As soon as a drain became a sewer, in legal parlance, the sanitary authority became responsible for its upkeep and repair. When a number of premises which had previously separate drainage became connected, the drain became a sewer or what was equivalent to a sewer for legal purposes. One might ask: "When is a drain not a drain?" and get the appropriate answer: "The higher the fewer." I should say that it would be absolutely impossible for me to answer obscure legal questions but the many cases that have been heard in the courts on this matter— there is a stack of them under the appropriate authorities in the books and records—show that there has been a great deal of litigation over this whole question. The effect of this arrangement was to minimise the liability of builders in regard to the construction of a drain pipe leading from a separate house to a sewer that had already been laid by the public authority.

In 1890 a Bill was passed and in Section 19 of that measure an attempt was made to remedy the position. Where two or more houses belonging to separate owners were connected by one drain, the arrangement was that the sanitary authority could recover from the owners any expense incurred in remedying nuisances or defects in the drain— that is, where the houses belonged to separate owners. That Bill gave the lawyers more work and added to the difficulties. It did not deal with houses belonging to the same owner whose drains were connected to a public sewer and, further, some of the houses might be sold to another person. You would have four houses belonging to one owner and in the middle there would be one house belonging to a second individual. Further, the section did not deal with the distinction between remedying a nuisance and repairing or making good a fundamental defect in the drainage system. Nuisances could be remedied, but the question arose whether the Act applied to fundamental defects.

In Part II of this Bill a single private drain leading from one house to a public sewer continues to be defined in the same way in order to avoid making a different judicial interpretation; in fact, in order to avoid making legal difficulties. The big change that has taken place is that the owner of a number of premises is now liable to remedy nuisances and fundamental defects in a drainage system.

It will be recalled that, under the 1890 Act, in the case of houses belonging to separate owners, the Act made it clear that the owners were responsible. The present Bill makes it clear in the case of premises belonging to the same owner. The liability to maintain and repair drainage also applies to buildings that are not dwelling houses. Under previous legislation the owner of a building not a dwelling house was not responsible for the maintenance of the drain. I might add that a number of municipalities in other countries have included provisions of this kind in private Bills for drainage purposes.

Another improvement in the law is that local authorities may now open drains in order to see whether a nuisance has occurred and examine nuisances reported to them without an individual making a complaint, whereas, formerly, some individual had to make a complaint in a proper form before the local authority could open the drain for the purpose of examination.

There are all the usual provisions for appeal in these matters and it will be noticed that time is given to owners of premises to pay for the connection of their drainage with the public drainage, if the sanitary authority does the work as a result of their failure to do so.

In connection with the improvement of water supplies, under previous legislation no account was taken of improved standards. There was no proper means by which owners could appeal against a decision that their premises must be connected with a public water supply. The same held good in regard to buildings that are not dwellinghouses. They did not come under the provisions of previous Acts.

Section 26 in Part III provides a valuable aid to the improvement of sanitation. It gives powers to the sanitary authorities to improve or contribute to the improvement of existing small water supplies. Everybody coming from a rural constituency will realise that that may be very valuable in the future.

In Section 27 power is given to a local authority to analyse water belonging to a private water supply. That power has not hitherto been available and it should result in the provision of purer water supplies in many places in the country. So much for Parts II and III.

Is that power merely in respect of a private water supply for the occupants of one's own dwelling?

It concerns an absolutely private water supply. Part IV of the Bill makes provision for the regulation of camping. The only existing law on the matter is contained in the section of the Local Government Act of 1925 framed to deal with itinerants. In recent years camping has increased in popularity and it appears likely to develop more and more. The Bill proposes to empower sanitary authorities to make by-laws in regard to the matter.

Section 34 makes special provision in regard to semi-permanent camping grounds to which large numbers of campers resort, and requires the landowner who lets ground for this purpose to secure a licence from the sanitary authority. The licence must include conditions in regard to the matters set out in Section 34 (6). Section 34 will have force only in areas to which it is applied by Order of the Minister; in other words, the Minister will have some discretion in preventing licensing which might be required because of some busybody. The matter will be examined with great care in order to ensure that there is good reason for enabling the sanitary authority to provide licensing of this kind.

Even when the section is applied it will be open to the landowner to allow his land to be used for camping without a licence for 18 consecutive days or for shorter periods aggregating 36 days in any year. The House will appreciate that this will not prevent those people who like to wander in lonely places from camping in caravans and tents far from the madding crowd and far from tourist resorts. Those people will still have reasonable liberty to do that because it is very unlikely they will ever arrive at a place where a farmer has allowed camping to take place over the period of 36 days in respect of a number of other campers.

Provision is also made for a licence direct to a camping organisation recognised as such by the Minister, so that if reputable camping organisations desire licences to camp in a certain place the Minister can provide them with that facility.

Part V relates to bathing places and represents a completely amended and consolidated code. Here we have effected a very large measure of consolidation. The existing law is based on such old Acts as the Baths and Wash-houses Act of 1846, the Town Improvement Act, 1854, and the Public Health (Amendment) Act, 1907. Part V will confer powers to provide public baths on all sanitary authorities and will enable the sanitary authorities to establish these amenities at a convenient distance outside their own districts.

This power will also facilitate the provision of open-air swimming pools. The House will agree that such a measure is desirable at the present time. The Bill also gives power to provide and maintain life-saving appliances and for the employment of life guards and the construction of swimming pools. The sanitary authorities will also be able to arrange for instruction in swimming and rescue from drowning and to contribute to societies which include in their objects the rescue of persons from drowning. The House will recollect the tragedies and fatalities that have occurred around our coast in recent years. This Bill will enable sanitary authorities to have full powers to take all the measures necessary in this regard.

The provision in relation to swimming pools is rather costly and we feel that the resources of town commissioners would be generally inadequate for the provision of these services. This is mentioned in the Bill. Provision, however, is made in the Bill to enable town commissioners who have already provided baths to continue to maintain them. For others, the cost will have to be met from the larger area of the authority.

Part VI consolidates the existing law in relation to burials but it introduces no substantial or far-reaching changes in the present position. The provisions are intended to remedy flaws and shortcomings to which notice has been directed and to clarify obscure points.

Part VII contains a number of miscellaneous provisions intended to remedy a variety of defects or gaps in the existing sanitary laws. The various sections can best be discussed in Committee.

This Bill is proof of the intention of the Government to raise standards of living throughout the country and may be regarded as being in line with the Health Act and the Housing Bill now passing through this House. It is unnecessary for me to stress to members of the House the importance of installing efficient drainage systems and also adequate water supplies wherever possible. The powers to be conferred by this Bill, we believe, will simplify administration and hasten the provision of amenities and conveniences of many kinds. The Minister is very anxious that the Bill should become law as soon as possible and, as I have said, it is only a first step. It will probably be followed by more comprehensive measures later on but it does represent a considerable advance. There are at this moment in many towns houses not connected with the public water supply or with the sewerage installed in the town. This Bill will enable that position to be remedied. The cost to the owner in the ordinary way will not be very great and if the work is carried out by a sanitary authority, the owner having refused to take the necessary steps, under an arrangement whereby there is a private improvement charge levied in addition to the rates upon the owner concerned, the expenditure can be paid over a period of 30 years at an interest of 5 per cent. Those people who know the cost of connecting drainage will realise that that is not an undue charge for the average house-owner to bear.

In any event, there are ample appeal provisions in the Bill which should make it possible for sanitary authorities that take a reasonable attitude, at the same time, to give to the owner of the ground opportunity of appeal if he considers that he is unfairly treated or if he considers that his private water supply or sewerage is adequate and that he need not be connected with the public supplies. I recommend this Bill to the House.

With a great deal of what is in this Bill I am in agreement. With some of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I am also in agreement, particularly when he said that the law in regard to drainage and so forth was so chaotic that he was not going to answer any posers on the subject. Quite frankly, it would be just as difficult to put the posers as to give the answers. The law in that respect is so unsatisfactory that it is desirable, and has been desirable for a long time, that it should be clarified.

Apart from that, the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that this Bill is an interim Bill and therefore it, perhaps, can be dealt with slightly differently from the way in which you would deal with a Bill that was going to be an entirely permanent measure. I have some considerable doubts about the method in which the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to get over some of his difficulties. I agree with him that it is entirely undesirable that where, for example, a local authority goes to all the expense of putting in a water supply and a drainage system in a town, that there should not be a method of providing that that supply would be properly used.

I am not quite happy as to the manner in which the Bill proposes to deal with that matter. However, that may be more a question for consideration in Committee. I am not happy either about the effect of the section in the Bill dealing with combined drains on existing combined drainage agreements. I would like to be assured by the Parliamentary Secretary that nothing that there is in this Bill can operate so as to alter in respect of any existing combined drainage agreement the position which is at present contractual as between various owners on the one hand and local authorities on the other hand. I think it is desirable that it should be specifically made clear that that is so because I am not quite happy about it reading the Bill.

I do not agree, as the House is aware, with the system of having matters affecting a person's rights and property determined behind closed doors by Government Departments. The other night I had unfortunately to be away in Kildare on certain other public business. I had contested that principle on the Bill that was then under review just as I propose to contest the principle on this Bill and I contest it as a matter of principle. I think at least the Parliamentary Secretary will have the manners not to suggest that it was in an effort to make more business for myself that I would make any such suggestion. His colleague, the other night, saw fit, in my absence, to be entirely personal in a way that would be despicable if it were not typical of the person concerned.

Is it in order for a member of the House to speak like that of a Minister, particularly in his absence?

Is it in order for a Minister to attribute to a member of the House that he introduces an amendment in this House for the purpose of private gain?

It is not in order to make such comment in the absence of a Senator, at any time, or under any circumstances.

It is unfortunate, Sir, that I was not able to draw your attention to it at an earlier stage. It is desirable that when it is necessary to carry out, in the public good, an infringement of what are otherwise ordinary private rights of property, there should be a method by virtue of which the person who is affected should be able to state his case in public and to have the case that is against him also stated in public, in his hearing, so that he may have a due and adequate opportunity of seeing the justice of the case against him and of seeing that he has got a fair crack of the whip. I think that it is desirable in every case where there is an infringement and perhaps a necessary infringement.

The Parliamentary Secretary is taking in regard to this Bill certain powers in respect of the disposal of bodies and cemeteries. I would suggest that in that regard it would be very much more advantageous if the Parliamentary Secretary would try to galvanise his Department into doing something about these matters when they are requested. If ever a charge of delay could be laid against the Department of Local Government it could be laid against them in that regard in respect of a Kildare case that I have in mind. In 1933, the Kildare County Council asked for the closing of the cemetery in Kildare. In 1934, a public local inquiry was held. In the year of grace 1947, the Department of Local Government wrote to the Kildare County Council that, having considered the result of the inquiry held in 1934, they were going to close the cemetery. I suggest that if the Department of Local Government take 13 years to move on that, the addition of Part VII to this Bill is not going to do very much to assist the public health of the country.

There is one final observation which I want to make. It is that there is not the slightest use in enacting laws affecting sanitary services, or any other services, unless the people who are operating those services are contented and satisfied in their positions. It is greatly to be regretted that, in regard to sanitary officers all over the country, the Department have not been able to arrange satisfactory terms with them in view of the new and altered conditions under which people are now living. It is greatly to be regretted, for example, that those men who, in certain respects, are qualified in a specialist way are in certain cases put in a category in which they are paid less than the clerk-typists employed in county council offices. As long as the Parliamentary Secretary permits that system to operate he has very little hope of achieving anything real or useful out of this Bill.

At the outset, I want to draw attention to Section 7 which requires the Minister to table regulations made under the Bill when it becomes an Act. I have searched the Bill thoroughly, and I can find only one instance in which the Minister takes power to make regulations. Everything else is done by Order, and these Orders will not be tabled under the provisions of Section 7. Therefore, it is entirely illusory to imagine that the provision relating to the tabling of regulations will have any effect whatever except in the one instance where, under Section 47, the Minister will make regulations for the "disposal of bodies otherwise than by burial". Should the Minister desire at any time to make provision for the "disposal of bodies otherwise than by burial", he must proceed by way of regulation. That regulation will be tabled and may be annulled. All the other activities of the Minister under this Bill will be by Order. There is no obligation on him to table his Orders, there is no power conferred on either House of the Oireachtas to question these Orders or to raise any point in regard to them. I do not know whether that is a deliberate evasion or not. If there is any sincerity in the provision regarding the tabling of regulations, I suggest that the honest way to proceed would be to take out Section 7 and insert a new sub-section in Section 47 saying that regulations made under the section will be tabled. As I have said, Section 47 is the only section under which regulations will be made at all.

Of course, there may be another explanation for this. It will be recalled that, originally, this Bill was the tail end of a long measure introduced by Dr. Ward in 1945. Subsequently, there was a change of mind on the part of the Government when three Departments were carved out of the then Department of Local Government and Public Health. The tailpieces that we got were the Department of Health and the Department of Social Welfare. The Department of Local Government was left with the residue. I assume that part of the legacy was this Bill which was a tailpiece of the original Public Health Bill, and that the explanation for having Section 7 here is that it was in the original measure, that nobody bothered to see what it meant, or whether it meant anything, and so it was carried into this new Bill placidly and calmly.

The other point that I want to raise has reference to Section 5 of the Bill. This is surely one of the most contradictory provisions that ever was inserted in a Bill of this kind. We are told that under this Bill the laws in relation to sanitation, drainage, public health, etc., are being codified. We proceed later in the Bill to apply the whole of the 1907 Act and 1890 Act to the whole country, but in Section 5 we have this gem that "Sections 219 to 223 of the Act of 1878 shall apply in relation to by-laws made under this Act." It would not have taken the draftsman ten minutes to draft a provision to replace these sections which are adopted in this Bill. If one turns up the Public Health Act of 1878 and reads Sections 219 to 223 one finds that they make nonsense. The old lady, Queen Victoria, ran all over them. With her acquiescence the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland might do the various things set out, and all that is being shoved into an Act to be passed here in the year 1947. Would it not have been a simple matter for the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to take out provisions which are now to be found in hundreds of other Acts passed by the Oireachtas relating to by-laws—the provisions, for example, inserted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Harbours Act—and insert them in here, and in that way let us know exactly the methods by which by-laws are made in relation to sanitation under this Bill? It is a slovenly thing, purely and simply, in the tailpiece of a Public Health Bill to throw them in here without the slightest attempt at alteration. That should not have been done when bringing this forward as a separate and independent measure.

It appears to me that this Bill is not quite so clear as the Parliamentary Secretary made it appear to be. For instance, certain provisions will apply where the local authority consider that action should be taken to secure a proper drainage system. I have been unable to find out whether the action will lie against the owner or the occupier. Section 12, for instance, enables the sanitary authority, by order, to require the owner of separate premises to execute certain drainage works relating to the premises. I am not quite sure against whom the proceedings will be taken. The old Public Health Act of 1878 contemplated proceedings being taken against the owner. I am not sure whether that is so under this Bill, but I should like to draw attention to the fact that under this Bill a sanitary authority is not merely an urban council or corporation. It also includes a county council and, therefore, power is conferred on a county council to proceed against the occupier of a lonely farmhouse requiring him to provide sanitation. It is probably an ideal thing that that should be done, but let us make up our minds that we are conferring power on the local authority which enables them to require a farmer in an isolated area to provide drainage under Part II.

It is true that, under sub-section (3) of Section 12, a sanitary authority about to make a drainage works order in relation to any premises must have regard to the character of the area in which the premises are situated. I do not know what that means. It may mean anything the Minister cares it should mean, but, in the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill, it is stated that—

"the provisions of this Part of the Bill are directed towards securing the connection of premises with sewerage systems, where these have been provided by the local authority".

That may be so, but I do not know any restriction in the Bill limiting the provision of that Part of the Bill to areas in which a sewerage scheme is provided by the local authority. I do not think it is delimited in that fashion at all, and, while I have the greatest admiration for the aims of the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department in endeavouring to secure a high level of social amenities in rural Ireland, I want to draw attention to the grave difficulty which will be experienced in getting compliance with a provision of that kind and the enormous cost which will be imposed on poor people who are unable to find the money to provide even septic tanks in parts of the country. It is deplorable that it should be so, but we live in the country and we know the facts, and there is no use denying that there are thousands of small-holders in Ireland who could not afford to provide even a septic tank, if required to do so under the authority of this Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the provisions of Section 18. That section is a complete departure from the existing law. I think the existing law will be found in Section 51 of the Public Health Act, 1878, which section enables the local authority to open a drain which is a nuisance, but only on the complaint of an aggrieved person. Should it be found that the drain, when opened, is in proper condition—in other words, if the local authority has been misinformed or has acted on a defective or a malicious complaint— the costs incurred by the sanitary authority in having the drain opened and closed again will fall on the person making the complaint.

Section 18 short circuits all this procedure. It provides that, where a sanitary authority becomes aware or suspects that a drainage system is defective, it may, after notice, open up and examine the system without further ado. If it is found, on being opened up, to be defective, the council under this Bill may proceed at once and at the expense of the owner of the property to put the system into good condition. That is a very considerable departure from the existing practice, but what it leaves unsettled is the question as to what responsibility rests on the local authority, if, when the drain is opened up, it is found not to be defective. It is clear what will happen if the council opens up a drain which it suspects to be defective and it is found to be defective, but there is nothing to show what responsibility rests on the council should it be wrong and should it open a drain on somebody's property which, on examination, is found not to be defective.

The only other section I want to refer to is Section 29, which relates to charges by sanitary authorities for supplying water. Section 66 of the Public Health Act, 1878, authorises a sanitary authority providing a water supply to charge a water rate or it may enter into agreements with other persons for the supply of water, and so forth. That section empowers, but does not oblige, a sanitary authority to charge water rates or water rents to persons supplied with water from a public system. The Public Health Act, 1896, renders it obligatory on the local authority to charge rates or rents if a certain number of ratepayers ask that it should do so. The provision in Section 29 is a complete departure from that practice. It enables the Minister to make an Order on the application of a sanitary authority to modify the provisions of any enactment regulating the charges to be made for supplying water—that apparently applies to the supply of water to a private householder or to the local authority—or to modify the provisions of any award or agreement which determines the price to be charged for the supply of water. The provisions of Section 29 are very far-reaching. They authorise a Minister by Order, which will not be tabled under Section 7, to modify any existing statute in relation to charges for water rents or water rates, to modify agreements made between one sanitary authority and another in relation to rents charged for water service. It is true that there is one redeeming feature of this section—if the Minister thinks fit, he may hold a local inquiry before making this Order. That is not adequate security that the section will be operated with regard to existing conditions and former practices.

We have here an instance where a Minister may make an Order, deliberately called an Order so that it will not be tabled under Section 7, and, therefore, will not be capable of examination or annulment by either House of the Oireachtas, an Order which may have the effect of modifying an existing statute or an agreement made between local authorities and householders or between one sanitary authority and another. These points require serious consideration. We ought to see whether the Bill in its present form does not require substantial amendment, to ensure that the intentions of Parliament will be supreme and that they shall not be set aside by a Departmental Order which is incapable of annulment.

This is a relatively small Bill compared with others before us lately. Even though it may have some defects and not go as far as desired, if it did nothing more than bring about the effective control of camping it would have been justified. However, it does more than that. We know that the growth of camping in the country has been rapid and it must be admitted that the conditions under which camps have existed up to now have been a perfect disgrace. I am delighted to see that, under this Bill, there will be some definite control over permanent or semi-permanent camps. Again, the Bill will, I hope, stimulate the provision of public swimming baths and ordinary public baths and that in itself justifies a Bill of this kind. It goes further than that. It makes provision that the sanitary authority may provide for games. In general, there has been a lot of complaint about the lack of amenities for our young people, particularly in the country. This Bill, under these headings I have indicated, can make life far more attractive to the young people, apart from being far more healthy. There is great need for properly supervised and controlled camps, with adequate bathing facilities and adequate facilities for games.

There is one clause in this Bill that really puzzles me. Section 47—and now I come from something bright to something very gloomy—provides for the disposal of remains otherwise than by burial. As far as I know, that is taboo to the overwhelming majority of the people and I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary just what is meant. If the section indicates provision for cremation or other forms of disposal of human remains, we should be told it in far more definite language than is contained in the section. The Bill otherwise has tremendous attractions and I think it deserves to be welcomed.

One aspect of the Bill I would like the House and the Minister to keep in mind is the conditions that exist in most small towns. I know them well, as I owned a small town. When the Minister talks of increasing the standards, the amenities of civilisation, does he realise that he is placing on owners of a certain class of property obligations altogether out of proportion to the revenue they derive from that property? Does he realise that, in a number of small towns, a large number of what we call the working-class houses of the older type are let at rents of 3/- and 2/- per week? Those rents are stabilised and controlled under the Rent Restrictions Act and it may very easily take ten years' gross rent to make the necessary sanitary connections.

In addition to that, very heavy repairs are needed in that class of property. The effect of this Bill is that that class of property is bound to fall into greater neglect. I am not in a position to suggest the remedy, except that there should be some regard to the element of control in houses of that class. It is reasonable enough, perhaps, to control houses when rents run into an appreciable figure, but houses with these microscopic rents should be approached by a more generous form of control. Otherwise, the properties will get into worse repair—and that is happening at present. Some owners I know derive so little income from this class of property that they throw in their hands and make them over on nominal terms to the occupiers. I know one case where they were handed over at a loss. This is a serious matter and deserves serious consideration. I admit that some concession has been made by allowing the cost of these connections to be spread over a number of years.

Do bear in mind, when we talk somewhat lightheartedly, somewhat in a crossroads spirit, of rapacious landlords in these rural areas, that many of them are striving to maintain property of a certain class which gives them no income whatever and that it is altogether out of balance to expect them to make heavy expenditure on up-to-date water and sewerage for property of that kind. If you ask me what the remedy is, I say, do not remove the ceiling in its entirety, but put on a much higher ceiling, in view of the increase in wages and the general depreciation in money and in the rents that may be derived from that class of property. One must realise that a rent of 2/- or 3/- is utterly absurd in these days and that it would be impossible for a landlord to maintain a property at such a rent.

I think that most of the Senators will disagree with Senator Duffy's disparaging remarks in regard to this Bill and his opinion that this is the tail-end of the previous legislation to combine the health services and the sanitary services and the division of the Ministry into separate Ministries for Health and for Local Government.

I would like to refer to Senator Sweetman's remarks regarding the amenities provided under this Bill. It provides for proper camping facilities, for sanitation and for, shall we say, aesthetic conditions where camps are in operation. We have made provision for better facilities for inland and sea bathing. I think that these are very commendable services and that we should be glad to provide for them under this Bill. As far as the country generally is concerned, surely to allow the local authority to provide facilities for games and for the acquisition of land where games can be played is an addition to our legislation.

I did not refer to the Senator's remarks about the disposal of bodies, as in the case of very infectious diseases, such a provision would have to arise and there is a clause in the section by which the provisions have to be placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary's consideration of the position which will arise in large local authorities as a result of the provision for the alteration of the conditions of service of some of the authority's officers. There is a considerable number of sanitary officers in the City of Dublin at the present moment and I fancy that most of these officers will now become health officers while some of them will continue as sanitary officers. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary's consideration of how these services will be divided and what changes will be adopted for the division of the services. Some will be health officers and some sanitary officers, and could the one person still operate as a health officer and as a sanitary officer and carry out duties relating to both Ministries?

The question of the combined drains legislation has been very involved and complicated and has caused considerable litigation up to the present. Will the provisions of this Bill increase the cost of building? I think that the tendency will be to provide separate drains for each house and that will mean separate connection from the drainage of each premises to the public sewer. That will, to my mind, probably increase the cost of building in urban, municipal and rural areas. The system has been that there was a combined drain which took the drainage from a terrace of houses and one subsequent connection with the sewer, and I think that that would be a much cheaper system of sanitation for a terrace of houses.

The trouble would be, however, that an individual householder on a terrace would be liable for damage or stoppage or any other defect in the combined drain. I fancy that the tendency now would be to have a separate connection from each house to the main sewer, and that, to my mind, would increase the cost of building. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to enlighten me as to whether that will be a sequel to the legislation which we are passing in connection with the abolition of the combined drain system.

I do not think that I require to pass any further remarks, only to commend to the House these main sections which are a great advance on any legislation which we had to cover these matters up to the present.

With regard to camping sites, I think that this commendable provision should be made.

The public and public representatives have often expressed the need for the provision of swimming facilities, and I think that this proposal to provide bathing facilities is a very good one, and also the power to appoint lifeguards in all sea-bathing places around the coast. I think that Clare was first in this matter of providing lifeguards, before any other portion of the country, even the City of Dublin.

We should congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on bringing this in, even though, as Senator Duffy remarked, it may be the tail-end of the legislation which provided for combined public health services.

I rise to welcome this Bill. My only regret—as a tail-end has been mentioned—is that this Bill has come at the end of the session. It is a very far-reaching and comprehensive Bill, and it would take me a considerable time before I could grasp all its meaning and all its implications. Such of them as I understood will go far to solve the many problems in urban and local sanitary affairs. There are so many things locked away in it that it is hard to know where to start, but I think that Senator Donovan mentioned that the individual householder to be responsible for 100 feet of sewerage or water supply was considered bad, though, of course, in small towns it never amounts to that distance because houses are built convenient to the road. The road runs right in front of the houses and it might be 20 feet. I am afraid there will be some little objections to that. I welcome the Bill. I am very pleased to see that we are making provision for swimming baths and life-saving and various services of that kind which do so much good to the public and which, in many instances, save lives. The health of the young people will benefit a great deal by the addition of suitable swimming pools. They are rather expensive for a local authority but, with the help of the Government, I am sure that they will become very general.

This Bill is so comprehensive that I cannot refer to as many matters as I would like. I shall simply content myself by congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on it and I hope that it will be a great success. I should like to point out, however, that the success of this scheme, as of all other schemes, depends to a great extent on the efficiency of the service given in the engineering branch of the local Government Department. There were times when that service was not as efficient as it might have been. On occasions, there has been considerable difficulty in my town. For instance, on one occasion, a plan was passed by the Local Government Department, but we found that we had to have two or three plans before the matter was finally completed. In that regard I feel sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will see to it that, if there are any cobwebs in the boards of the Local Government Department offices, they will be brushed aside.

Ar nós na gcainteóirí eile a labhair go dtí seo níl le rá agam faoin mBille ach go bhfuil fáilte agam roimhe. Tá mé ar fad ar aon intinn fé prionnsabal an Bhille agus ceapaim go bhfuil cuid mhaith againn ar an aigne céanna i dtaobh na bhforálacha.

Níl ag teastáil uaim ach ceist a chur ar an Rúnaí Parlaiminte agus is í ceist í ná seo í: An bhfuil aon scrudú déanta aige i dtaobh a riachtanaí agus atá sé go ndéanfar freastal níos fearr ná mar a déantaí go dtí seo ar na scoileanna náisiúnta, go h-áirithe na scoileanna náisiúnta faoin dtuaith? Mura bhfuil an fiosrú sin déanta aige ba mhaith liom a iarraidh air anois, mar is dóigh liom gur ócáid oiriúnach é, go ndéanfadh sé fiosrú faoi leith féachaint an bhféadfaí ar aon chaoi córas a chur ar fáil i dtreó is go mbeidh uisce i ngach scoil náisiúnta ar fud na tíre. Ní hamháin go bhfuil sé riachtanach go mbeadh uisge le fáil sna scoltacha seo acht is dóigh liom go bhfuil sé thar am go dtuigfear an riachtanas atá le riar maith uisce le haghaidh óil. Tá eolas agam ar áiteacha ar fud na tuaithe agus bíodh go bhfuil pumpaíuisce nó tobar in aice na scoileanna níl an t-uisge feiliúnach le haghaidh óil. Bíonn ar na scoláirí dul i bhfad ón scoil, agus uaireannta fiú amháin go daoine priobháideacha, chun an t-uisge atá riachtanach don scoil d'fháil.

Tá súil agam go bhfuil an tuiscint cheart agam ar Alt 26 mar baineann sé le ceist a theastaigh uaim a chur ar an Rúnaí Parlaiminte i dtaobh airgead a chur ar fáil do dhaoine a mba mhian leo uisce priobháideach a bheith acu. Má tá Alt 26 fé mar a thuigim é, is dóigh liom go raghadh sé bealach an-mhór chun deacrachtaí muintir na tuaithe, i dtaobh riar uisce, a réiteach daobhtha.

Arís, bha mhaith liom a iarraidh ar an Rúnaí Parlaiminte, mura bhfuil an fiosrú déanta cheana, agus muran féidir í dhéanamh go díreach faoin mBille seo, go dtabharfadh sé aire do na pointí a dhein mé. Ba mhór an trua, agus a bhfuil de scoileanna nua á dtógáil faoi láthair ar fud na tuaithe, ná beadh ar chumas lucht tógála na scoileanna sin córaís den tsaghas atá luaite agam a chur iontu.

Níl mórán le cur agam leis an ndíospóireacht seo. Is Bille fiúntach é seo ar son na nithe a sholáthraíonn sé don phobal. Ar a shon sin molaim é. Ní habhar argóna ná díospóireachta na pointí atá fónta atá luaite cheana. Mar sin féin tá cúpla rud go mba mhaith liom tagairt dóibh, bíodh is gur deineadh tagairt dóibh roimhe seo, mar ba mhaith liom leathnú níos mó a dhéanamh ar na pointí sin.

Teastaíonn uaim tagairt a dhéanamh do leithreasa in áiteacha poiblí, cuir i gcás ar thraenacha agus ins na stáisiúin. Ba mhaith an rud go mbeadh cumhacht ag duine éigin poiblí, ag oifigí sláinte faoi Bhord poiblí nó ag an Roinn Rialtais Aitiúil féin, féachaint chun na nithe sin agus súil a choimeád ar na leithreasa agus ar na córais sin i dtreó is go gcoimeádfaí iad fé mar ba chóir iad a choimead agus ná ligfí chun faillí iad fé mar a ligtear go minic.

Tá an rud céanna le rá mar gheall ar mhion-tithe ósta agus tithe lóistín agus bialanna. Ba chóir go mbeadh faire níos géire, ní hamháin mar gheall ar leithreasa, acht mar gheall ar na háiteacha ins na tithe sin ina nítear na gléasanna boird agus na gléasanna a úsáidtear ag freastal bídh do phobal, sa chaoi go mbéifí cinnte i gcónaí go mbeadh na hárthaí agus na gléaseanna sin glan agus cumhra mar ba chóir dóibh a bheith ar mhaithe le sláinte na ndaoine. Tá cuid mhaithe leasaithe de dhíth ar na seirbhísí poiblí seo, agus ar son sláinte an phobail is dóigh liom go mba chóir scrudú a dheánamh níos minicí orthu. Tá fhios agam go bhfuil soláthair ar chuid de na tithe móra ósta faoi fhorálacha an Achta eile sin, ach níl fhios agam an bhfuil údarás ann chun scrudú a dhéanamh, cuir i gcás, ar chórais boithre iarainn agus ar áiseanna don phobal ins na háiteanna atá luaite agam.

Baineann na smaointí céanna le hionaid imeartha cluichí, mar a mbíonn sluaite móra daoine bailithe le chéile. Is beag áit den tsaghas sin ina bhfuil córas don phobal maidir le leithreasa agus áis.

I dtaobh cluichí agus an tsoláthair atá dhóibh sa Bhille, tagann an smaoineamh in aigne agam gur mó an gá atá ann chun an pobal a spreagadh chun cluichí d'imirt ná mar atá chun láitheacha imeartha a sholáthar. Fé mar is éol dúinn tá imirt chluichí agus cleachtadh cleasa lúith ar a son féin imithe ar fad, nach mór, as an tsaol. Tá cluichí anois ceangailte ar fad beagnach de cheist airgead gheata. Sin é an bonn atá faoi cluichiocht faoi láthair. Is beag ar fad an tsuim atá i gcluichí ar a son féin. De ghuáth bítear ag cuimhneamh ar an airgead geata nó ar an iomcam atá le teacht ós na cluichí sin. Tá fonn cluichí d'imirt ag an bpobal féin go mor in easnamh agus is trua gan an fonn sin a spreagadh. Bíodh is go bhfuil riachtanas le háiteanna a sholáthar le haghaidh cluichí tá gá níos mó leis an ngríosadh chun a nimeartha ag an ngnáth-phobal.

Maidir leis an mBille seo, is Bille inmholta é. Nílim chun tagairt do na nithe maithe atá ann mar do dhein cainnteóirí eile é sin rómham.

Is é an t-aon lucht atá agam air ná go gceapaim go mbféidir é do leathnú i leith cúpla pointe eile. Molaim an Bille and molaim an Rialtas i leith é thabhairt isteach, ach ba mhaith liom go leathnófaí é beagán.

Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí den Rúnaí Parlaiminte mar gheall ar dheontaisí do dhaoine príobhaideacha chun tithe tuaithe do thógáil. An mbeidh coinníoll ann feasta maidir le córais leithreasa agus soláthair uisce agus a leithéid sna tighthe sin? Go dtí seo ní bhíodh aon choinníoll mar sin ann. Ba mhaith liom fíos d'fháil nuair a bheidh £150, £200 nó £275 mar dheontaisí do thógáil tithe faoin tuaith i gceist an mbeidh coinníoll maidir le soláthar leithreachais ag gabháil le haon chuid de na deontaisí sin feasta.

The most important advance made in this Bill is that it empowers the local authority to have a sewerage and water supply within a certain distance of a house. In the old days the principal trouble we had was that a local authority putting in a water supply or a sewerage scheme had no power to compel houses to join together unless the house was within 100 yards of the sewerage system or the water supply. Now the local authority can bring it to within 100 yards and, if the owner owns six or eight houses, to within 100 yards multiplied by the number of houses. I think that is a considerable advantage and very necessary. It was certainly very badly required. It is a good thing, too, to have the difference between a sewer and a drain clarified to some extent. Under the Act of 1890, an attempt was made to combine drains for certain purposes. I do not know that the Parliamentary Secretary has entirely solved the problem. The difficulties may not be apparent at the moment, but I am sure that they will arise, particularly when one comes to consider the question as to what is or is not a combined drain. You may have a terrace of houses which may drain on to another terrace and continue from that to a sewer. The question then is as to when does that drain become a sewer or when does it cease to be a drain. A certain amount of headway has been made under this Bill, but I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary admits that a further supplementary Bill will have to be introduced. Probably by the time it is introduced we shall have had some experience of the working of this Bill and we shall know what alterations to make with regard to both sewerage schemes and water supplies.

With regard to Senator Sugrue's statement, I do not think he has dealt quite so much with this Bill as with other Bills. I think the Public Health Bill has already dealt with the question of restaurants and lodging-houses to which he made reference. With regard to games, whether they are professional or not and irrespective of whether they are played for gain or for exercise, it is a good thing that local authorities should be enabled to supply playgrounds for the public. If playgrounds are supplied games will be played.

I am in thorough agreement with most of the remarks made by Senator Sir John Keane in regard to the tendency of this Bill to throw additional burdens on to the landlords. I own a certain amount of house property and I am naturally, therefore, interested in this aspect of the Bill. The tendency to increase the burdens placed upon the landlord is really reaching the point of absurdity, because the time is rapidly approaching when the landlord will find himself unable to make all the improvements. This question of public drainage has been a contentious subject for quite a long time. As far as I can remember, where two or more houses were connected to a public drain or sewer, as the case may be, the local authority was liable. As far as I can gather from the Parliamentary Secretary now that will not be the case in future and the burden will be thrown upon the landlord as one further addition to the already heavy load he carries. The time is approaching when we shall be faced with the question as to whether or not we shall expropriate house property. Are we going to reach the stage when private ownership will cease to be part of our economy? A minority of people is interested in this property. In order to please the majority must that minority be compelled to bear burdens out of all reasonable proportion? Complaints are being made at the present time all over the country with regard to the shortage of houses. The most pitiable cases occur. What is the primary cause of that shortage? In my opinion it is due to the legislation dealing with house property passed by this House over a number of years. Nobody now wants to build houses to rent because the tendency of legislation is to increase the burdens more and more.

Having expressed my views with regard to that part of the Bill that affects me personally, I would like to say that there are many points in the Bill which call for congratulation and the Parliamentary Secretary will have my full support in securing the passage of those into permanent legislation. I would, however, like to point out one or two curious anomalies that exist at the moment. In the residential portion of my town a curious situation exists. I personally am paying something like £40 in rates. What is the position? I might as well be isolated somewhere in the middle west. No connection exists with the public sewer and we are compelled to sink sumps. The ground around those sumps over an area of 50 to 100 yards has become contaminated. When those sumps become full—as they occasionally do—we have to clear them at our own expense. Until the sanitary services are comprehensive enough, I think there should be some understanding about cases like that; that the public authority, when they are not in a position to enable these people to dispose of this, matter should provide for the drainage and clearing of these things at intervals. Why should people like that be paying rates for services which they are not getting?

Section 49 of the Bill deals with rivers. To my mind, it is a pity that this section is not a little bit more comprehensive. In many cases, rivers are only glorified sewers; they are a scandal and a disgrace to any civilised community. Everybody is allowed to pour crude sewage into these rivers and, instead of a source of health and enjoyment, they are a source of danger. Some time ago, when the question of infantile paralysis was mooted, many doctors were of the opinion that it would be very dangerous to bathe in some of the rivers immediately below towns in any case, because it was considered that they might be a source of infection. The general feeling is that that is so, and in some cases rivers are a terrible danger to health. It seems to me a pity that this Section 49 has not been made a little bit more comprehensive.

If the Minister wants to provide for people who want houses at a cheap rate, instead of increasing the burdens upon the houseowners, facilities should be provided to enable such people to erect things like septic tanks, instead of compelling them to erect them at their own expense. As things go on, it will be a case of presenting houses to people. It would be a much cheaper thing to do than to go to the expense of putting in any of these improvements.

I should like again to emphasise the fact that our housing shortage, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a number of people who ought to know, is due entirely to the tendency of legislation adopted by this House. We will arrive at a stage when no houses will be erected, except by public authorities, and then we will have a peculiar form of State organisation which will differ very little from the system which we seem to be so much afraid of at present, namely, the Russian system. Everything will become a matter of public ownership. There will be no such thing as private property if some brake is not put upon this tendency.

It seems to me a very great pity that this Bill has to be rushed through the House sandwiched amongst a number of other Bills, for this reason principally, that the public needs a great deal of education on the matter of sanitation, and that the debate, if it were sufficiently wide and everybody had an opportunity of discussing the details of the Bill in which they are specially interested, could do something towards that public education. We know that you may bring a horse to the pond, but it is not easy to make him drink. What I am very much afraid of is that a good many of our people—it is regrettable and lamentable, in fact—have no appreciation of proper sanitation or the proper use of the facilities or amenities which this Bill proposes to put at their disposal. One is sometimes quite shocked at the condition of certain places. It is very important, therefore, that sanitation in the schools should be provided and that the pupils should be taught how to use it properly. From the schools that might spread to other people. At present it is really a crying scandal to see the ignorance of the people and the barbarism in certain respects.

I have not time to talk about other aspects of the Bill in which I am interested. It is a Bill in which women are bound to be interested, as it is fundamental to the health of the community. I should like, however, to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his thought in providing public wash houses. Of course that was done before, but I think the drying and ironing facilities which can also be provided under this Bill will contribute very largely to the efficiency of women-kind in the running of their homes. It is very hard in certain homes, especially in small flats and in other places in cities, to do washing and drying and ironing and all that is necessary to keep clothes clean. If a sort of public laundry is provided which can be used by the inhabitants of flats, it will be a very great help. That is one of the things I should like to stress in thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for piloting this Bill through the House.

I am glad that Senators in general have approved of the terms of this Bill and I should like to make one or two observations on what has been said. So far as Senator Duffy's accusation that the Bill has not included sufficient consolidation is concerned, I agree with him. But this Government will never hesitate to go ahead with new legislation for the benefit of the people at large solely because of any temporary inability to give sufficient time to the consolidation of the law. Although from one standpoint consolidation is a good thing, when a Department such as the Department of Local Government brings into law a very large number of measures it is a sign of enthusiasm, of vigour and of interest in the well-being of the community. I have no apology to make in that regard, except to say that there will be another Bill later on when the effect of this Bill has been examined and when the whole question of sanitary services has had further investigation.

Senator Sweetman referred to private contractual arrangements in relation to drains. If he refers to Section 11 (3) he will see that private contractual arrangements are not altered by the terms of the Bill. Reference was also made by Senator Sweetman to the delays in dealing with applications for the closing of cemeteries. I understand that recently these applications have been more expeditiously examined and, therefore, for some considerable time past there should have been no cause for complaint. With regard to the remuneration of sanitary officers and caretakers of cemeteries, if local authorities make recommendations for a reasonable increase, particularly where such persons have responsibility for maintaining burial grounds in good order, they will be sympathetically examined by the Minister.

Senator Duffy referred to the usual problem as to whether the Minister should lay Orders made under this Bill before the House. The Orders referred to are in connection with the licensing of land for use by campers, increased charges for water services and arrangements for making it easier, from the legal standpoint, to provide for areas-in-charge in respect of new sanitary services.

That means modifying the existing statutes.

I do not believe it is necessary for the Minister to lay such Orders on the Table of the House, nor do I believe the House would have time to consider such Orders if they were so laid.

Senator Duffy also asked what the "character" of an area meant in the section which states that regard should be had to the character of an area in making a provisional Order for sewerage. In general, sanitary authorities will have to consider the conditions obtaining in any particular area. One condition essential to the making of a provisional Order for sewerage is that there should be a public water supply and that automatically limits the effect of the sections of the Bill dealing with sewerage. Sanitary authorities, we expect, will act intelligently in this matter, will foresee so far as possible all the difficulties that may arise, and will not make a provisional Order in an area where great hardship would arise or where it would be undesirable.

In regard to a case where the sanitary authority opens a drain for the purpose of its examination, if they find that there is no defect in the drainage system which they are examining, they will have to restore the drain to its previous state at their own cost.

Section 29 only enables the Minister to sanction increased water charges under a provision which up to now has been part of the Expiring Laws Act. There is no other change in connection with Section 29.

Senator Sir John Keane and Senator O'Reilly referred to the difficulty experienced by owners of small houses rented to workers in carrying out a Drainage Order. As I have already said, if the sanitary authority does the work, payment can be effected over a period of 30 years at 5 per cent. Members of the House will realise that if there is a charge of £20 for work of that kind, it would be possible to bear such a charge without great difficulty. Again, the sanitary authority will act in a reasonable manner in regard to the making of the order. It is possible for local authorities to acquire property of this type which is already virtually uneconomic, put it into proper repair and then carry out the necessary drainage. In fact, in a certain number of areas where there are houses of this type, local authorities have been making such acquisitions.

Senator O'Reilly referred to the housing shortage. I can only reply to that that the Government has been doing all it can in regard to the housing shortage. It has introduced a Bill recently which will give increased grants and facilities for house building.

The pollution of rivers comes under the River Pollution Acts. Sanitary authorities have certain powers to prevent the pollution of rivers, but the general question of river pollution is not a matter for consideration under this Bill in the ordinary way. There are no facilities for the public cleansing of cesspools as were suggested by Senator O'Reilly. That is a matter we might look into, but I can foresee difficulties there as well.

Senator O'Donovan raised the question whether sanitary authorities should have a right to enforce the making of a combined drain in cases where individual owners of houses might wish to make separate drains so as to avoid costs. Sanitary authorities may enforce the making of a combined drain under Section 12 (2). The owners will be responsible for the making of 100 feet of the drain and the sanitary authority will be responsible for the remainder.

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary has the sanitary authority power to insist that the drain to be made will be of a sufficient diameter to take all the sewerage of the numerous houses in the area?

Yes, they have power to insist that an adequate combined drain shall be made. Senator Ó Buachalla referred to the necessity of providing water supplies for schools. I have every sympathy with his suggestion that schools should have sewerage and water supplies. So far as I know, the Minister for Education will sanction grants for improvements of that kind and for the inclusion of these facilities. Senator An Seabhac referred to the question of sanitary conveniences which should be provided by transport companies. We shall look into that matter to see how far it is a matter for this Department and how far it is a matter for the Minister for Health. In regard to the provision of grants for housing, the Senator asked whether it would be necessary to provide water supplies and sewerage services in houses for which grants were given. The answer in the case of individual houses in the country is "no" but the grants will be higher where water supplies and sewerage are included. I think I have answered all the questions that were raised in the course of the debate.

In connection with the provisions regarding playing grounds or playing fields, I would suggest that no facilities should be given whereby a charge could be made by any authority for the letting of such grounds without approval. The main purpose of the provision of these grounds is to promote games.

The question of charges is a matter within the discretion of the local authority. They are given a discretion to make a charge.

Would that mean that a company, or anybody who wants to make money by the use of such places for public exhibition, would be entitled to impose charges for admission to such places?

That is also under the control of the sanitary authorities. It is a question of the profit that may be made by the sanitary authority.

Is it possible to lease places like that for purposes of the kind I have mentioned?

It may be done if the sanitary authority think it should be done.

Like one can lease a public hall and use it for pictures or other commercial purposes and not for the general purpose which was intended by the Act? Is it possible to use these places commercially like that?

In the ordinary way I think the sanitary authority can be trusted to act with discretion in the matter. It may on occasion be of advantage to the community to lease buildings or lands to some other person to make a profit thereon and it may not be an advantage on other occasions. The sanitary authority will have to use their discretion. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent their so doing.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for next sitting day.