Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Oct 1924

Vol. 9 No. 4


Before proceeding with the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, which is the next Order on the Paper, I think it might be desirable if No. 11 —Local Government No. 2 Bill—were taken.

Is it intended to take No. 11 now and then proceed straight through with the Order Paper as it stands?

Yes. The Intoxicating Liquor Bill will come on after the Local Government Bill has been disposed of.

I beg to move that the Local Government No. 2 Bill, 1924, be now read a Second Time.

Before this Bill goes further, I desire to say that there are one or two matters which I had wished to raise, but I intend to leave them over for the Committee Stage, because it was made perfectly clear by Deputy Johnson last Friday, when putting forward his original proposition, that he put it forward in a certain form which precludes discussion to-day. It was accepted in that form, and it is not my desire to take advantage of this occasion to undo any part of the contract that exists. I just like, however, to put it on record that when a Bill is re-introduced in this fashion it ought to be subject to debate on Second Reading on every new matter that has been introduced into it, just as the No. 1 Bill was debated on the principles embodied within it.

If it were in order I would move the postponement of the Bill for three years, and for this reason: that the administration we got for the past four years has prejudiced the Minister and the Dáil against the local Councils. If we could give them a trial for the next three years I am certain that the representatives of the people would give much better results. For the last four years they were not given a fair opportunity. I ask this as a reasonable concession, believing that otherwise you will not save much, because for every two clerks of a District Council that you pension off you will have to employ two more in the County Council. I ask the postponement of the Bill for three years so that we may give the old system a further trial, especially, as I do not believe we will economise much under the present proposal. I am certain the Minister for Local Government would almost agree with that.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 4th November.

I have to warn Deputies that the numbering of the sections is now, of course, quite different from what it was previously. We would require to get in again all amendments to the Bill as now printed.

I would like Deputies to note also that there is a mistake in the printed text of the Bill. Section 28, sub-section (4), paragraph (b), page 15, should read as follows:—

"(b) on any such application as aforesaid the Justice of the District Court may, if he is satisfied that the request is unreasonable or that compliance with it is unnecessary or unduly prejudicial to the applicant either annul altogether or amend in such way as he thinks proper the request."

We are circulating a reprint of the Bill.