Edition Bobbett2. Speeches and statements by Elizabeth F. Bobbett

1945 Wicklow, Meeting of the County Council

Source: Wicklow People, 13.01.1945

Farmers’ Federation Deputation. Permission having been given to hear the deputation from the Irish Farmers’ Federation at the commencement of the meeting, Miss Elizabeth F. Bobbett made the following statement:

Regarding our request to have the resolution which was passed at the September meeting, 1944, of the County Council rescinded, “That separate charges for such works as water supplies, sewerage and drainage work, dumping grounds and public scavenging and public lighting be made county health charges,” the members of the Irish Farmers’ Federation at their county executive meeting held on 3rd October, 1944, forwarded a request to the County Council to have the above resolution rescinded and asking them to receive a deputation so that they might be in a position to discuss matters. We regret to note that your county secretary in his letter of 19th December 1944, addressed to me as secretary of the IFF, stated that “the motion referred to came before the council at their meeting on 11th December and was ruled out of order by the chairman in accordance with Standing Order No. 34.” Therefore we first ask the council to suspend Standing Orders and enable this motion to be properly discussed in its true position before a final decision is reached on it. We ask this for the following reasons, as the whole matter is a very serious one for the ratepayers, in particular for the ratepayers in the country districts, who under the new arrangement would be saddled with the greater portion of the increased charges. We base our request for the suspension of Standing Orders for the following reasons:

a) That the day this motion came before the County Council meeting, neither the chairman, Councillor James McCrea, nor any other councillor could understand it that day, because the only facts made known to the council were entirely one-sided and whilst disclosing advantages to certain ratepayers, deprived the council of opportunity to know before voting on the matter what were the corresponding disadvantages to certain other ratepayers.

b) That this kind of blindfolded discussion and consideration of such an important matter was grossly unfair to ratepayers of the county and was a form of administration prejudicial to justice to those on whose behalf the whole institution existed.

c) That if the Standing Orders were not suspended, the decision thus irregularly arrived at would soon have the force of law and prejudice the council’s opportunity for adjustment at any later date.

d) That it seems most unfair for the chairman to have vetoed discussion and decision on this motion at a later stage when relevant facts without which it could not at any time be fairly discussed were only now made known to the councillors.

Now as to the figures so far available to us we find the following is the position under the new arrangement of putting these charges over the whole county:

A) The rates in Greystones and Delgany stand to benefit to the tune of 10d in the pound on present figures, and no doubt more and more as time goes on. This 10d increasing will have to be made good by districts such as Kilbride, Dunganstown, Roundwood, Glendalough and Killiskey. Because of this Rathdown No. [[?]] RD will unload about £750 per annual on to the farmers and Hill people. These farmers and Hill people in the Rathdrum RD will have themselves to pay about £1,200 per annum more because of this change. In the Shillelagh RD places like Carnew, Kilpipe, Tinahely and Shillelagh town will pay from 2d to 4½d less in the pound and £400 per annum less for the rural district by handing their burden over to the Hill men and country people, chiefly of Rathdrum RD.

B) About £12,000 per annum is involved in this whole matter. The places that benefit by the proposed changes are the towns and villages. These are the very places that benefitted by the schemes. Outside the towns and villages the farmers and small holders and poor people are not merely not getting water, sewerage and light (perhaps not even paraffin oil or candles), but they now are to pay part of the cost of these for the people that are getting them. Is this the newest form of justice? Nearly half of this £12,000 goes in wages to workers living in these towns, and the towns benefit from these wages but not the country. If about one-fifth of the balance of this £12,000 per annum is to be taken straight off those towns and villages and placed on the country people there should be good reason. There should be a good reason now, and not a blind suggestion of vague benefit in the distant and unknown future that will never come. No good reason of any kind has been included in the council’s resolution.

C) It is strange that it is the country people of Rathdrum RD that are to pay most of this. In what exact form are they to be recouped for this extra £1,200 per annum that they are now to be compelled to pay? What benefit is to come to them from this extra 3d in the pound.

Looking at this whole matter from the point of view of one wishing to understand it, one cannot help wondering if the main purpose for this change is not to make it easier for the office to calculate so much in the pound over the county rather than that people should pay for what they get. Seeing that most of the councillors are representatives of areas that will benefit, it strikes one that as Rathdrum RD is weak in its opportunity for representation on the council it is to become a Cinderella in a pantomime in which self-interest comes first and justice last.

We hear a lot about post-war plans, and when Councillor Charles Hudson asked for details showing the disadvantages of the change contemplated, the Chief Public Health Officer wrote sending on the figures and stating post-war plans for Rathdrum would put up the Rathdrum rates, he failed to make it clear that post-war plans for built up areas like Greystones would make the effect of [[?]] the new scheme ever so much [[?]] on rural areas, and of course there were no plans of any kind before the councillors to enable them to balance consequences and thus a condition of blindness prevailed over the whole matter. Therefore in justice we ask to have that motion rescinded. We hold that if an area want certain facilities they should be prepared to pay for them.

The first list of particulars of separate charges on the various areas supplied to the councillors on 1st September 1944, showed that Rathdrum would get a reduction of 5¼d, while on the second list supplied on 7th November it showed Rathdrum as only getting an increase of ¼d, while most of Rathdrum RD suffers an increase of 3d. We wish to draw attention to following items in these lists of expenditure: Red Cross lighting, annual expenditure [[?]] £20 – ¾d in £; this is not in force for years past. Ballyknocken old water supply, annual ex. £15 - ¼d in £; we understand this has been taken over by the Poulaphouca scheme. We hold that the best scheme to help rural areas is a reduction in our rates. We ask the council to investigate the position now held by the Railway Company, as some years ago the GSR was granted a reduction on their valuation which added extra rates to the rest of the ratepayers. Now that the new company have a monopoly they should pay a just share of the rates of the county, and owing to the road monopoly enjoyed by the new Transport Company we demand that the time has come for roads to be made a National charge.1

1 - At this stage the Chairman interrupted Elizabeth Bobbett and asked her “to keep to the grounds of complaint and not to lecture the council on how to conduct their business”.