I suppose that I will be able to move this amendment on the Report Stage?
DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1924 THIRD STAGE—(RESUMED).
SECTION 3.
Amendment 2 not moved.
I think if the Deputy would consult the Clerks in the interval he would be able to get an amendment in the form of a proposed new Section for the Report Stage. I will take amendments 3, 4, 5, and 6 together. They aim at the same thing, I think.
Amendments by Mr. Baxter:—
3. In line 22 to delete the word "two" and substitute therefor the word "six."—Pádraig Baxter.
4. In line 25 to insert after the word "exist" the following words:—"Save and except such councils as shall be retained in accordance with and as a result of the procedure prescribed in sub-section (2) of this section."—Pádraig Baxter.
5. To delete all words from the word "every" in line 27 to the word "county" in line 28 inclusive, and substitute therefor the words "such rural district councils within a county as shall have ceased to exist."—Pádraig Baxter.
6. At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
"The Minister shall on a requisition signed by one hundred local government electors in a rural district and presented to him within three months after the passing of this Act cause to have taken at such time and at such place or places as will be deemed to be convenient a referendum of the total local government electorate of such district on the question of the retention of the council of such rural district, and where two-thirds of the total electors of such rural district voting shall declare in favour of retention the council of such rural district shall not cease to exist."
Before moving these amendments I would like to hear from the Minister if the arguments advanced last night on the question of the abolition of district councils were weighed up by him and considered during the night, and if he has anything to offer us?
In view of the fact that the Dáil came to a decision yesterday evening by a vote, and that my amendments aim at practically the same thing as Deputy Corish's did yesterday, and as we were defeated on that, I cannot see that I can serve any purpose by proceeding with these amendments, and with the leave of the Dáil I would withdraw them.
The amendments are not moved.
I would like to get a ruling on this matter. A Deputy handing in amendments cannot withdraw them without the leave of the Dáil. If Deputy Baxter asked for the leave of the Dáil to withdraw them I do not think he got it. I think amendment 6 should be moved, and I would ask whether I would be in order in moving it, if the Deputy does not move it.
I want to make it clear to Deputy Lyons that I have no objection to moving these amendments. I want to point out to him, however, that if you move amendment 6 you have also to move amendments 3, 4 and 5, because the whole section would be altered by the inclusion of amendment 6. I have no objection whatever to moving the amendments if the Dáil refuses to give me permission to withdraw them.
If Deputy Baxter does not desire to move these amendments Deputy Lyons can certainly move them, but I think he had better move them together; they really form a whole.
When the Dáil has given leave to the Deputy to withdraw them I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by taking up time in discussing them.
I hold that the Dáil has not given permission to Deputy Baxter to withdraw the amendments.
Very good. I will give leave to Deputy Lyons to move them if he likes.
I formally move the amendments. I should say that my reason for expressing the opinion that the amendments should be withdrawn was because of the attitude of the Minister last night on the propositions and arguments put forward. I recognise that we advanced a very reasonable case that was entitled to consideration, and was, I think, entitled to be met with some forward step on the part of the Minister. As far as I can see he could hardly deny the fact that our arguments as to the retention of the district councils was sound in so far as we showed that there was work that the district councils might do, that there was room, perhaps, for a change, an alteration, and a re-allocation of the duties that district councils might perform, and I did consider that the Minister might have been prepared today on consideration to say that at a further stage he would put in something else, some alternative that might in some way meet all the points of view that were expressed and outlined. If he is not prepared to do that I must admit that it is largely a waste of time to move the amendments, because if they meet with the same non possumus attitude as they did yesterday evening it is simply a question of waiting for the poll. For that reason I was inclined to withdraw.
However, I shall advance the point of view that came to me when I put down these amendments. As I said yesterday evening, I do not take up the attitude that the district councils should be retained to function as at present, and it was not my intention that the administration of public health services or the service of sanitation would be retained under their jurisdiction. But I did say that they could perform services in the administration of district roads. I also feel that in the administration of home help a local committee could do the work in a way that a county committee, meeting in a central place, representing a huge area and a great number of people, charged with a very considerable expenditure, could not do it. I believe, as I argued yesterday evening, that the time of a body like a district council would be well spent in doing this work. I admit that there are districts, and perhaps counties, where apathy prevails as regards the retention or the abolition of district councils, and rightly so. In some districts they have been a failure, an absolute failure, largely due to the events of the past three or four years, perhaps due in some cases to the personnel of these councils. There are other districts where they have not been such a failure, and there are districts that feel strongly that these councils ought to be retained, and districts where the electorate feel that all their rights as regards local administration are to be taken very far away from their districts to some centre. Beyond question, many counties might as well have their county councils functioning and administered from the city of Dubline as from where they are. To many counties Dublin city is as accessible as portions of their own counties are, and the distance could be covered just as easily.
I hold that the electorate in a district ought to be given a chance to say whether they are keen on having their district councils to continue. The Minister, of course, may argue that this proposal would mean that elections would have to be put back a very considerable time. If there was a desire to speed up and discover what the people think, there is no doubt whatever that a plebiscite could be taken on this within three months of the passing of the Bill. We would then know what the people think. After all, this is a question of local administration, local government, and the people locally should be consulted directly as to what is their point of view and in what fashion they seek to have their affairs administered. I have put in one amendment that in any district, after the passing of this Bill, where 100 electors in the district present a petition to the Minister for the retention of their district council, he shall cause a plebiscite or referendum to be taken of the total local government electorate in that district, and if two-thirds of those voting declare that the district council shall not be abolished, it shall not be abolished.
I cannot conceive any proposal that would be fairer than that. If the situation is as the Minister for Finance yesterday evening argued it was, that the people do not care, we will probably not be able in a district to get 100 electors to sign the petition, or, the number who will go to the polls will be so very small that the majority would be against the retention of district councils, and the Minister will then have the sanction of the electorate for what he has taken on. On the other hand, the Minister may advance the point of view that we would have one system prevailing in one part of a county and another in another district in the same county. I cannot say I have a very wide experience of other counties, but in a county the rural district councils have either been a failure or they have been tolerably satisfactory. In a county where the people are in favour of district councils they will be in favour of all the district councils in their county or none at all, and I cannot conceive that you would in any county be likely to have one district council retained and the others abolished. But even if they were like that, my amendment is so arranged, and I have amendments further on in the Bill arranged in such a way, that the functions of the district councils would not clash with the functions allocated to the county councils. I feel that there are services that might be better performed by a central authority within a county. But if there are services that might be administered locally, that the people locally want to administer. I believe the Minister is erring in passing legislation that will deprive these people of the rights they have enjoyed up to the present, deprive them of a system of administration that as far as they are concerned as rate-payers has been satisfactory and as far as they can see will not be improved by the system the Minister proposes to introduce.
I support Deputy Baxter in his proposition, and I am sure we shall have the support of the Minister for Justice. He has been very eloquent and convincing in certain statements that have been made publicly regarding the ascertainment of the wishes of the inhabitants. The proposition of Deputy Baxter is to administer local areas in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants duly ascertained. Surely we shall have the support of the Minister for Justice in this proposition, otherwise we will have to conclude that his argument will only apply in the odd case and that he is prepared to turn his back on the wishes of the inhabitants if they do not suit the Minister for Local Government. The case Deputy Baxter makes, that where the inhabitants of the district, having an opportunity of declaring their wishes, vote by a two-thirds majority in favour of the retention of the rural district council, seems to me to safeguard the declared intention of the Minister and his supporters, because they have insisted that the rural district councils have been extravagant, wasteful and incompetent. Then they will have the choice as to whether in their view the rural district councils have been extravagant, incompetent, and unworthy of support. If, despite the Minister's views on this question, the people are prepared to pay for their extravagance and bear the responsibility of their incompetence, then I suggest they should be allowed to.
Perhaps it is not inappropriate to remind Ministers of another phrase that has come frequently from their lips—that it is better to have self-government, even though it means bad government, than government from an outside authority. In respect of certain purely local services it is well that the inhabitants of a locality should have the responsibility, and that is what Deputy Baxter's amendment proposes to ensure, and I hope the Minister for Justice will support it.
I regret that through a misapprehension I was not here in time last night to oppose vigorously the abolition of district councils and vote against the section in the Bill which was unfortunately carried. I think it would be a good business proposition if the Minister would inform the Dáil what machinery he proposes to set up in lieu of the district councils before he puts down a section to abolish them. I went very carefully through the Bill and I did not see there was anything in the Bill to satisfy us on that point. We are groping in the dark. We do not know what machinery is to be set up. Of course, I speak from the point of view of the County Tirconaill. I cannot for the life of me see what machinery he is going to set up to carry on the business that is allocated to district councils at the present time. I suppose he intends to make the office or position of county councillor in Tirconaill a whole-time job and keep him in Lifford for three weeks of each month in the year. If I had been here last night I would have advocated giving the district councils more extended powers, because in my opinion the district councils should have the administration of the Medical Charities Act and also home help, formerly known as outdoor relief. There you have the representatives of the people and they are the people who would be in a proper position to administer these things in an honest and upright way.
I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment which is down in the name of Deputy Baxter, although it does not go far enough so far as I am concerned, because I am convinced that the rural councils should not be abolished for the very reason that there is no machinery set up in the Bill to take their place. You will hear me later on on this subject, as I have notes and statistics upstairs which I will bring down, and between this and Friday you will hear something vigorous.
The reason I am so keen on supporting this amendment is that I think it should meet with the wishes of the Minister for Local Government. We are supposed to be a democratic assembly, acting on behalf of the people and voicing their opinions. If that be so, we should give the people an opportunity of expressing their views regarding the abolition of the district councils. This amendment will not cause any expenditure. A plebiscite can be taken at the church doors or in clubs or halls, and I am sure that the opinion of the people will be voiced in that manner. Of course I am well aware of the fact that the Minister for Justice, the President, and the Minister for Local Government are of opinion that a plebiscite cannot be taken at the church doors or in the schools, because in their opinion there might be corruption, or there might be tactics used to make people sign against their will. That is not so, for wherever there is a district council the people of the district are the people who pay the rates, and if they wish their council to remain why not give them that opportunity of saying so? It was pointed out yesterday that this proposal to abolish them was based on grounds of economy. I would like to remind the Minister that this will not mean economy, but will result in effects similar to those under the amalgamation schemes. At the inquiry into the administration of Offaly Co. Council the Secretary swore that he did not see that any saving was effected by the amalgamation scheme. Surely that should be sufficient proof. Surely these officials are not going to swear what are not facts. If the people of the district in which there is a Rural Council have not an opportunity of having some representatives to carry out local administration it will not be a saving but will mean increased expenditure.
This amendment gives the Minister an opportunity of saying whether he really believes in the voice of the majority of the people and whether he is really sincere when he talks about majority rule. If such a vote results in two-thirds of the people being in favour of the retention of Rural Councils, I do not see why they should not remain. It is an understood fact that you have several Rural District Councils which were capable bodies. We have been told by Deputy Good that the District Councils never did any real service, but I can tell him that they have done a great deal of useful work. In the first place, it was through the district councils, and through their bombarding the different local government officers, that they succeeded in getting decent houses in the form of labourers' cottages. Yet we are told that they have served no useful purpose.
There are other councils which look after the old and infirm, and at present if an aged person wants to get shelter he has perhaps to be taken thirty or forty miles away. Yet we are told that that is no expense. I suppose it costs nothing for a motor car or van. By having control of local administration the rural district council will be the proper authority to look after such people. I think all local administration should be in the hands of district councils, and where the people are against dissolving them these councils should remain. I hope that every Deputy will support the amendment in order to give the people an opportunity of voicing their opinions as to whether the rural councils should be abolished. Personally, I do not see why any Deputy should not support the amendment unless, of course, he is part of the voting machine, and comes in here at the press of a button, and says tá when he really prefers to say níl, or says níl when in his heart he means tá. I ask the Minister to let this amendment go to a free vote of the Dáil.
Deputy Baxter in moving his amendment seemed very reluctant to do so. His principal reason appeared to be that he considered that it covered very much the same ground as that covered by the amendment yesterday. For that reason I think that he showed a great deal of common-sense in not inflicting another debate on the Dáil. Deputy Lyons, however, has come to his assistance and insists on plunging the Dáil into a new discussion on this matter. Many Deputies have objected to this Bill on the ground that there is no substitute for the rural district council. If they were carefully to read the Bill, however, and read it in connection with the Electoral Act for local councils they would understand that there are such things as electoral areas in each county. These areas are apportioned out on a much more equitable and more sensible system than the rural district councils. In these areas you have got, approximately, equal populations and the areas are approximately equal also. Each of these areas will send a certain number of representatives to the county council elected in accordance with the system of Proportional Representation. You have, accordingly, in each area the nucleus of a committee which can perform all the work of a rural district council without having to go to additional expense in electing such members, and in paying salaries to officials, and also in paying establishment charges.
Would the Minister tell us what section of the Bill allows for such committees to be appointed?
The Bill allows for the appointment of any number of committees.
Does it oblige the county councils to appoint such committees?
It is not mandatory at the moment, and it was considered advisable to leave that provision as wide as possible.
Does the Minister mean that there are provisions in the Bill for appointing such local committees? If he means that, would he tell us by what means these committees are to be brought together, who the responsible officer is, where the meetings are to be held, and what are their functions? Also will he tell us whether the officials will be some of the old officials who are now passing away as officials of the district councils?
The Bill provides for the setting up of committees of two kinds.
Will the Minister say what section provides for the setting up of committees of a county council apart from the board of health?
It is provided for in the previous Acts, which are not repealed. There is a provision at present for the county councils setting up committees apart from this Bill.
For local areas?
No, but the county board of health can do that.
Is there in the Bill provision for the county council to set up local committees to administer or assist in administering the work of the county council, as distinct from the board of health in any local area?
Not through the county council, qua the county council; but there is, however, through the county board of health.
Does the county board of health deal with roads?
Section 55 of the Bill explicitly authorises the appointment of committees by the county council, so that the Bill does contemplate the establishment of committees.
The Bill contemplates committees dealing with special functions over the whole of the county council area. It does not contemplate county committees dealing with any local area.
Yesterday the Committee refused to delete this section which abolishes rural councils. To-day Deputy Baxter wants to give an option by means of a referendum to any area. The essence of the question is: should there be a referendum in every area as to whether the district council should or should not be abolished? If we keep to that we can get the whole thing settled.
I submit the essence of my amendment would disappear entirely if there were provisions in the Bill to permit the establishment of district committees, and so I think would many of the arguments advanced for the retention of the district councils. We want that point cleared up—whether or not there are any provisions in the Bill to permit the establishment of district committees to deal with district matters. If there are such provisions I want to know who are to be the officials responsible. If we abolish the rural district councils we have only the central bodies in the counties. Where are these bodies to meet?
With great respect, you, sir, are shutting off the discussion at a very inappropriate moment. Will the committee that the Minister suggests be a voluntary committee of the county council voluntarily summoned? Does the Minister mean to convey that the committee he suggests in each county council area should be a voluntary committee, that is, that whatever services are rendered by them shall be voluntary, or will it be mandatory?
I should say that these committees will be voluntary. In fact, it is a logical thing for these people to do when elected, to come together to decide a common policy in regard to matters that affect their own particular area, and there is no necessity for them in doing that to have an expensive establishment to carry out their duty. There is authority for the county council to set up committees in the ordinary way under a previous Act, but with regard to local committees, I do not think that the county councils have that power at the moment. However, it is a matter that we can discuss at a later stage. I am in favour of making it as easy as possible to establish these committees, but it is a thing we want to allow considerable latitude in. If we tie these committees to any hard and fast line it would mean that that would defeat the purpose of these committees. We want power to appoint committees that will serve the special interests of local areas, as well as the general interests that concern the whole of the county areas.
It has been objected by Deputy Baxter that there is nothing to take the place of these rural councils, but I submit that those committees will be a very good substitute, and will perform these duties very much better, first of all because they will be elected for a sensible area instead of being elected for a ridiculously disproportionate area like the district councils; and, secondly, because the election or appointment of such committees will not involve the very high expense incurred by rural councils at present—£65,000 for their election every three years, and £85,000 for establishment charges.
Is it not a fact that the rural district council and the county council elections are held on the same date, that the same machinery is used, and that it would cost almost the same amount of money for the county council elections as for both together?
Not always.
That is my experience.
There was a discussion yesterday about amalgamation, and Deputy Baxter complained that if this Bill is to follow the lines of the amalgamation system it will prove a failure. I would like Deputies to understand that the amalgamation has not proved a failure. It would not have been at all surprising, under the circumstances of the great agricultural depression in this country, that amalgamation would show an increase in the cost of the administration of poor law relief, particularly when you take into consideration the high pensions that are being paid, and that a great number of public buildings have to be reconstructed in order to fit in with the amalgamation scheme. I have a list of the expenditure in the different counties incurred under the head of poor law relief before and after the amalgamation. In every county there has been a saving under the amalgamation scheme, with the exception of one county, and that is Kildare.
At the expense of the poor.
What about Clare?
The expenditure in Co. Clare under this head in 1920-21 was £90,243, and to-day £63,099.
Do you take 1920-21 as a normal year, forgetting that the grants were suspended in 1920?
The Deputy cannot make a speech. Surely we are not going to travel from the question of a referendum to the figures under the amalgamation scheme?
It has been suggested both to-day and yesterday that the amalgamation scheme has not caused a saving, and I think it is only fair that I should get up and answer. The one county where we had an increase under that scheme was Kildare, and there the poor relief was administered by the rural district councils, the honest and upright administration, as Deputy White declared, rural councils to be. We sent an inspector down to do away with these honest and upright bodies, and the result is that we saved £20,000.
I do not speak for Kildare at all; I speak for Donegal.
Coming to the county Donegal, the Deputy seems solicitous as to how this Bill is going to work out with regard to that particular county. I will accordingly give him some facts. At the present time in County Donegal you have Ballyshannon, with an area of 47,000 acres.
I know that.
The largest district, Glenties, has an area of 428,000 acres. The smallest district has an area of 40,759 acres, and a population of 7,772.
How many old age pensioners are there?
In another district, with an area of 52,849 acres, there is a population of 32,800. Under the Bill the county council will comprise 36 elected members for five county electoral areas, and they will be apportioned as follows:—Donegal 9, Letterkenny 8, Milford 5, Ballyshannon 7, and Glenties 7. The election will be by Proportional Representation, and each local interest can be as well represented in each of those five areas as they are in the present eight rural districts, served by so many councils. That can be done without incurring double charges for the election of representatives. So much for the County of Donegal. On the whole, there has been no case made out for this proposal of Deputy Baxter's. It will only lead to two systems of local government. In one part of the county you would have the rural district council with all its high charges retained, and in another part of the county you would have this centralised system. Unless I hear some arguments of a convincing nature I must say that I could not entertain the idea of any change in my attitude towards the amendment.
Now that the Minister has made a speech that he could have made last night when closing the debate on Deputy Corish's amendment—and incidentally I hope he has made the speech that he was going to make on the question of whether the section should stand part of the Bill—I should like to say a word or two in connection with Deputy Baxter's amendment. I am going to vote against it, although I am in favour of the principle underlying it. To allow one hundred electors to put the whole district to the inconvenience of a Referendum is wrong. The number of electors is too small.
We will meet you on that point.
It may be one thousand, as far as I am concerned.
You might have that one hundred electors composed almost entirely of relatives of district councillors or relatives of officers of district councils. If Deputy Baxter had said 10 per cent. of the people in a locality, it might meet the case.
I am quite agreeable.
If you amend your proposal to read like that, I will vote for it. I am in favour of the principle, but one hundred people would be too few.
I think the whole Bill falls through on the admission of the Minister. He admits that there must be a committee set up to administer the affairs of each district. The only difference is that the rural district councils are the committees set up by the vote of the people and at their expressed wish, whereas the committee suggested by the Minister will be elected by the county council. County councillors who might be living fifty miles away will be casting a vote in a rural district that they never saw the sun shining upon. That would be undemocratic and unfair; and on that basis alone the whole Bill falls through, in my opinion.
Whilst the Minister's figures were, I am sure, very interesting to most Deputies, he has not yet made a case for the abolition of district councils. However, that is not the question before us now. The Minister, in his statement, did not deal with the amendment proposed by Deputy Baxter. He did not give any definite argument against the proposal that people should be allowed to determine for themselves the usefulness or otherwise of district councils. It is not too much to ask the Minister to reply to an amendment that is put before the Dáil. I say that the Minister is misleading the Dáil by two statements that he has made. He said that rural district councils cost this country something like £65,000. I say that is not true; I state definitely that it is not true, because district and county council elections have always been held in this country on the one day. It would cost the same amount of money to provide machinery for a county council election as it would to have the two elections at the one time.
I think the Minister knows that, and it is not fair on his part to tell the Dáil what he has told it in order to get a certain amount of support for his Bill. He should try to make a good case. There were no Deputies on his benches yesterday when he was making his case—not a single Deputy. He says that at the present moment county councils are entitled to appoint committees to do certain work. Anybody who knows anything about county council work is aware that that is incorrect. The county council is entitled to appoint asylum committees, agricultural and technical instruction committees, roads and finance committees, and other committees of a similar nature which control the whole area; but it is not fair to suggest, or try to get anybody to draw the inference from that statement, that the county councils are at present entitled to appoint committees to function over different areas in the county. That is not so, and the Minister has no right to mislead the Dáil in order to bring some pressure to bear on Deputies to support the Bill. The Minister did not endeavour to deal with Deputy Baxter's amendment. Everybody, I think, will agree that the amendment is reasonable. The people should be allowed to determine for themselves whether district councils are wanted or not.
I should like to know from the Minister whether the committees shall be appointed by the county councils. Section 12 says that the board of health may from time to time appoint as many committees as it may think fit. The county board of health is only a body nominated by the county council. You are, therefore, giving power to that body to nominate a committee, although that body is not elected the same as the county council. I think that the county council should have power to nominate those committees. There is one more question I would like to ask. Will the clerks, who are at present acting for the district councils, be continued as clerks for those committees? Will those clerks be acting in the same capacity on those committees as they are at present acting for the district councils? While this amendment is before the Dáil we ought to be told the position. The Minister has made no explanation in regard to the clerks. Yesterday, in reply to me, the Minister told us that all these officers would be transferred from the district to the county councils. Now, as he has come half-way and suggested that committees would be appointed for carrying out local administration, will he say whether the clerks will be continued in employment on those committees? Will they be saved from dismissal, and will we, therefore, avoid giving unnecessary superannuation to people quite well able to work?
I will take the Minister back to the realities of the case by asking him some questions. Is it mandatory that these committees should be appointed to operate in the districts over which the district councils carried out their administration? Who will take the initiative for the appointment of those committees? If those committees are not appointed, who will carry out the administration of the districts previously administered by the district councils? Will the committee be elected by the county council or by the people in the district? If he answers these few questions he would give us an understanding of where we are with regard to the Bill.
This amendment seems to label Deputy Baxter as an enthusiast for the Boundary Commission. The object of the amendment is to place the different rural areas in the position of opting out of the Local Government Bill altogether, and setting up their own Rural Councils in direct opposition to the whole trend of the Bill, which is to abolish Rural Councils. It seems to be rather illogical, and, if carried, would be fatal to the whole purpose of the Bill. It seems to me that this whole question of the committee automatically operates in connection with the County Council, because you have got men from the different areas in the county representing the different districts, or I presume you will when the Bill is passed. They themselves, for any practical purpose, would be in touch with the neighbourhood from which they come, and they would, I think, afford to the County Council all the local information that would be required in connection with the affairs of the county—
And be voted down.
We are all voted down at times. If you are going to have a separate government for every little area, I think the sooner the Government recognises that either a united Ireland or a united Saorstát is out of the question the better. If every area is to claim that it has a right to administer its own affairs, then I think we would have to adopt the procedure that is adopted in connection with the United States. Except that we all know the members who have spoken in favour of this amendment are against the abolition of the Rural Councils, I do not think they have brought forward any real reason in favour of this amendment that has not been advanced on the broad question in connection with the Bill.
I do not know that I am quite clear about it, but I think the Minister wanted to give us the impression that we wanted, by this amendment, to have power to establish these committees. Did he want us to understand that we have power to establish these committees in the different districts? I wonder is he at the moment in the frame of mind that he is considering whether we ought to have the power to establish these committees or not? If we can get him to go so far as to admit that, we would be thankful for small mercies.
Deputy Hewat makes the point about areas opting out and setting up their own Councils. Now, I want him to understand that it is not the power of setting up our own Councils that we want at all, but the power to let the councils exist as they are at present, if the people want them. All we want is to give the people a chance of saying whether the Councils are to continue in existence or not. Nobody has a better right to say whether they are to continue to exist than the people who are responsible for bringing them into existence and who keep them in existence.
We are trying as far as we can to help the Minister to devise what, as we see things, is the best system for dealing with local administration. Now is it an easy thing to say that a district can be well represented by a councillor coming into a county council meeting from a distance of thirty or forty miles, or coming into a meeting of the board of health, and putting to that meeting the point of view of his district? Anyone who knows how the affairs of a county council are conducted knows very well that a county councillor coming in from any particular district, if he is capable of making enough noise at the meeting of the council, would be able to get a greater part of the road money spent in his part of the county. Similarly on a board of health, he would be successful in getting a greater amount of money spent on outdoor relief in his part of the district. That is happening to-day. That will continue to happen, and the system that is now set up provides for that happening. What we want to provide is that the money that is raised in the district, would be spent in the district. If there is too much spent in a particular district the electorate will have to bear that, and they will alter that system. We want to give the people who understand the present system an opportunity of saying whether or not that system is to live. The Minister says we have not made our case. I hold that the Minister has not made a case for the change.
I hold that we have made an unanswerable case, and that Deputy Hewat, with all respect, does not understand what he is talking about at all. Am I to understand from the Minister that the county councils shall decide who shall be on these voluntary committees that are to take the place of the district councils?
Before the Minister replies, I want to be quite clear about these voluntary committees, as he calls them. The Minister says it is contemplated in the Bill that the county council can set up these district committees in lieu of the district councils. Then the only thing you will have changed will be the name. What will be known as the "district committee" will replace what is called the "district council." I know also that in the meantime, in dissolving these district councils, you will get rid of the present officials and put in a new lot of officials to do the work of the district committees.
If the Deputy reads the Bill he will see that is not so.
Is the committee to be set up in the district, and what will its functions be? Is it to be home help, or is it the business that was formerly discharged by the district council with regard to road maintenance? What are its functions? How are these district committees to be staffed—how are they going to be served?
So far as I can see, the whole question that we are debating is the amendment of Deputy Baxter. As far as that is concerned, I do not know how it will work out in any county of the Saorstát. Where there are five electoral divisions, if two of these voted that they would continue to have rural district councils functioning as they are, what is to happen in the case of the other three? What position would the county council in such a county be in? How can the county council then function? These are matters I would like to have explained. Everybody who has any knowledge of county council work knows that the county council does delegate certain work to committees in certain parts of the county. These committees have to submit their findings to the county council for ratification. That is the position in the county councils at present. The same as any ordinary committee, it has to go back to the parent body. That is the position of the county councils at the moment.
May I interrupt Deputy Hughes to ask him what committees do the county councils bring into existence in districts now? Not one of the committees that are brought into existence are nominated by the county councils to function in any particular district.
May I interrupt to read the section of an Act which gives power to the county councils to appoint committees?
What Act?
The Application of Enactments Order of 1898. I mentioned that under our Bill the county board of health is given power to appoint certain committees. As Deputy Baxter wishes to know what committees the county councils can appoint, I will read the Application of Enactments Order, which makes the position quite clear:
(4) Every such council may from time to time appoint, out of their own body, such and so many committees, either of a general or special nature, and consisting of such number of persons, as they think fit, for any purposes which, in the opinion of the council, would be better regulated and managed by means of such committees; but the acts of every such committee shall be submitted to the council for their approval.
Out of their own body.
That is what I was trying to point out when interrupted. It is the practice with every county council to appoint committees to carry out certain work in districts in the county. They appoint Roads Committees, Finance Committees, and other committees of various kinds. They have the power to appoint these committees to-day, but the committees have to report back to the county council, and it is for them to sanction or reject the recommendations of the committees.
On a point of order, that is all very well, but——
That is not a point of order. We will hear Deputy Hughes, and I will not hear the point of order.
The county councils did appoint committees for various kinds of work, and I must say that the work is much better done by these committees than it would be done by fifty or sixty people wrangling around a table, as they do on many occasions.
Wrangling!
Yes. I have seen committees that had the expenditure of considerable sums of money. The council in its wisdom thought they were not the proper people to deal with certain matters and they appointed six or seven members to give them proper consideration, with very good results. If this amendment is not carried, county councils in the future can appoint committees to look after roads in certain areas. Take counties where you have Ridings for north, south, east and west. The county councillors for each area can be formed into a committee to look after the roads in the area. In that way, I say they will do as well as any district councils could do, because these people live in the area, and there will be no necessity to have an official or a District Clerk to do the work. The officials of the county councils are the people who will call these committees together. An official will go there to keep a record of the proceedings, and it will be done in quite a proper manner. I do not think there is any necessity at all for the amendment as it stands. As regards getting a hundred people out of a rural district to sign a requisition where the population of that rural district is 30,000, I think it would be quite preposterous for any sane body of men to do anything of the kind.
I quite agree. Although we have listened to the explanation of Deputy Hughes, the impression that is given is that these district committees can be appointed by the county council. What Deputy Hughes referred to is county committees, not district committees. The two are quite distinct. The impression is given by the Minister's statement that these district committees would largely replace district councils. That is not right and it will not be right in practice. If the Minister thinks I am wrong I will be glad if he will correct me.
I consider the Deputy is wrong.
Then the district committees are going to be set up to function in the districts. Am I wrong now? We are going to have district committees set up to function in the districts.
That is optional with the county councils.
We want to know where we are. I think we have got a right to know. I suggest that even the Minister does not know where he is on this question. Before we argue the merits or demerits of this case, we want to know where we are, if the Minister can tell us. If we are to have these district committees functioning, what in the name of goodness is the argument for getting rid of the district councils? We have the machinery there already, but it will be scrapped by giving effect to the first section of this Bill. The next thing that will happen after scrapping is superannuation. These district committees are going to be set up. If they are to have anything to do they will have to be staffed. Another staff will have to be appointed. I suggest the Minister does not know what he is contemplating at all. He has introduced this Bill and I suggest he knows nothing about it. What constitutional position will those district committees have? I can understand committees appointed to look after home help, asylums and other specific duties. They are not district committees; they are county committees which are district altogether. I want to know further, will those district committees be administrative or advisory and on what? Will it be on home help, road maintenance, sewerage and all the rest? We want to be quite clear as to what their duties will be. We do not know what their duties will be. Voluntary committees? What is the meaning of the word "voluntary" in this connection? Are they to be constituted voluntarily, and to work voluntarily? Perhaps the people appointed to convene them will be also voluntary or honorary, or whatever you like to call them.
I admit that if the functions of a county are going to be administered by one body there must be committees. No county council can do the work of the county council, and do it well, except it sits two or three days a month. Neither could the board of health do the work, and do it well, in one day— and I have some knowledge of them— only for the number of sub-committees that are set up by the board of health out of its own body, to deal with certain specific questions. As a matter of fact, there are sub-committees meeting every week, and the same will have to be done with the county councils. To talk about voluntary bodies or district committees replacing district councils is just the same as if the work were left to the district councils. The name committee or council is just the same. I suggest that you leave the present staff there, and get on as you are. I think the Minister does not know very well what he contemplates.
I do not know if I understand the matter, but to my mind the position of affairs is that the county councils still retain the power under the Act of 1898, and may appoint committees. There is no mention whatever in the Bill of provision being made for the appointment of these committees by the county council. I think that is perfectly clear. A provision is made in Section 12 whereby county councils appoint boards of health from their own members, and these boards of health are then authorised to appoint committees. These committees may either be of a character that will cover the entire health area or may be appointed to deal with specific points in limited areas of the health area. A point has been raised, and I think it is a fairly good point, as to who is to call these committees together, and who is to be responsible for them. Is it the secretary of the board of health who has to meet these specific committees throughout the county? I think that is a point that should be defined, because, as Deputy Gorey has mentioned, it might quite reasonably necessitate the appointment of quite a number of individuals to posts that are not filled at the present moment. I think I have made the position of affairs clear to my own mind, that there is no use talking about the appointment of committees by the county councils to replace the district councils. I do not think that is contemplated by the Minister. If it is, there is no provision whatsoever made for it in this Bill. The provision of committees by boards of health is specifically stated.
I do not know if we are ever going to get to the end of this subject. It would be much better if we could discuss these items under their own particular headings, and discuss committees under the heading of committees. As I mentioned before, there are two classes, one set up by the board of health under this Bill, and another that can be set up under the Application of Enactments Order of 1898.
Is that an Order or an Act?
An Order. They got power under a previous Act to do that. It is the same thing as an Act. Deputy Gorey seems to be in difficulty as to whether these committees will be district committees or county committees. What I pointed out was, that for the purposes of election each county will be divided into electoral areas. There are, say, seven electoral areas in a county, and each one elects seven representatives to the county council. These men can, and would, naturally come together to decide various matters relating to their own particular area.
On a point of explanation, what way can they come together, and what authority would they have when they came together?
Under this Bill the officers of the rural district council would become officers of the county council——
rose.
I wish Deputy Gorey would not be quite so bucolic in his interruptions. Where necessary, those staffs are transferred from the rural district council to the county council, and where necessary the clerk of the county board of health or the county council can call those committees together. In most cases the duties of these committees will be of a very informal nature, dealing with labourers' cottages and questions of that kind. It would not be necessary to have a huge staff if you have a regular county council officer to conduct the business. While we are putting the Act into operation we do not wish to tie up these various committees with hard and fast regulations. It might be necessary in different areas to appoint committees for different purposes. In an area that is likely to be frequented by tourists, it might be necessary to have a committee with regard to that particular matter. In another area there might be a defective water supply, and it might be necessary to set up a committee there. I do not want to put any statutory limitations as to the kind of committees that can be set up by the county council.
With regard to Deputy Baxter's amendment I do not see why in this particular case we should seek a referendum on this measure. I think it is the most undesirable of all possible ways to introduce a referendum into this matter, because in a great many cases the individuals who would be voting would be interested parties and many people would be put into the position of being judges in their own cases. For that reason I do not see that there is any point in Deputy Baxter's amendment.
Will the Minister reply to the question asked as to whether clerks of the district councils will be retained where those committees are formed?
Does the Minister rely on the Act of 1898 for power to give those local committees power to act in a particular area? As far as I know, the Act of 1898 gives power to the committees of the county councils to act generally, but not for any particular matter arising in a particular area. Will the Minister tell us whether they will get that power for a particular matter for a particular area?
In actual practice they never did appoint such committees, but they could have done so under the Act.
Mr. HOGAN
That is so, but where would they get the power now?
In the Act which is unrepealed.
Can the Minister say whether the Enactment provides that such committees shall have to have sanction from the central authority— the Local Government Board in the past —or the Ministry now—and whether that central authority has ever prevented any county council from setting up such committees?
Never.
If the county council decides to appoint a committee in each electoral area would the Minister for Local Government object to the setting up of such committee for that particular area?
Certainly not.
In each area covered at present by the functioning of the district council?
I certainly would object.
There you are. What is the use of putting forward your argument.
Is the Minister aware that under a recent Act what were known as the old district council areas were actually put into three electoral areas? Not only was the district council area put into three electoral areas, but portion of three other areas were brought in to elect five or six men, with the result that it upset the old balance altogether. There were three workhouses in one area, and none at all in another. I think the Minister is laying down for himself the foundations of considerable trouble.
I do not think the Deputy has considered the matter.
I think if Deputy Hughes considers the answer the Minister gave me he will find that he also has not considered it very much.
In view of the arguments that the Minister has honestly advanced on this whole question I would like to ask if he is prepared to reconsider the position and see if he could not, at another Stage, put something into the Bill which will coincide with his ideas as to the powers that these committees that he speaks of might have under the Act of 1898. If he is prepared to do anything like that, and give us some form of district committees, that is what we are desirous of getting and laying the proper foundation for. We are not satisfied that he is doing the right thing.
I would be prepared, when discussing the question of committees later on, to reconsider this question of county committees or committees of the county council, as distinguished from committees of the county board of health. At the present time, there seems to be some confusion as between rural district council areas and electoral areas.
We are not confused about the matter.
As far as I can see, the difficulty that arises at the present time is to distinguish as between a rural district council area and an electoral area.
I want to make my point quite clear to the Minister. I understand quite well the existence of county committees. I am separating county committees, such as the County Committee of Agriculture, the County Technical Committee, and the Finance and Road Committee, all of which are nominated by the county council. Leaving all these committees apart, I want to know if the Minister will consider the advisability of inserting in this Bill something that will give the county council or the electorate power to constitute committees, with special functions, and will he also make provision for an official to take charge of the work of these district committees? If the Minister agrees to that proposal we are satisfied.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Deputy Gorey made a remark just now which struck me rather forcibly. He said that no county council can do the work of a county council and do it well. That is a very serious statement, if true.
If I might explain, what I did say was that no county council as a county council could do the work. If it did, it would mean a week's session for the county council every month. I qualified my statement by saying that if the county council as a county council were to do the work it would mean a week's session. If my statement is read in that light, the Dáil will have exactly my view-point.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Then we get to this point, that no county council can do the work of a county council and do it well, without sitting for three months in the year.
That is so, except they do the work through sub-committees.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
If you visualise the county council as the county parliament, consisting of 50 or 60 members, with perhaps six representatives from each of 6 or 7 electoral areas in the county, and if you tell me that a body of that kind is not capable of efficiently supervising the local administration of the county without sitting three months in the year, it is a statement I am not prepared to accept.
I would ask the Minister to take into consideration the fact that a county council meets as a rule once a month. In addition, there are quarterly meetings of the county council which occupy the members a whole day, and at the end of the day it frequently happens that all the business is not done. There are also meetings of the roads and finance committees and of several other committees, such as the public health committee and the asylum committee. My point is that if a county council as a county council were to be asked to do all that work, without the assistance of such committees, it could not be done in less than a week every month.
Must every county councillor be on all those committees?
Not necessarily.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The case has been put up that the additional strain imposed on the county council by the transference to that body of the work presently done by the rural district councils would simply cause the county council to crumple and would react on the efficiency of all its work. My recollection of the work done by rural district councils in the past was that about once a fortnight, after the meetings of the boards of guardians, a certain number of the personnel of the boards of guardians remained on and transacted, in half an hour or forty minutes, the work of the rural district councils. The board of guardians are gone. The rural district councils remain for the present. But I have heard from many members of them that the work they have to do at present does not justify their continued existence.
Not with their present sphere of action.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I want to be quite sure whether we are thinking in terms of efficient and economical administration or thinking in terms of petty parish vested interests, in terms of little local Bumbles of one kind or another, whose attitude simply is: "We are here because we are here, and we should not be called upon to justify our existence. If you attempt to say that the county council, properly run, is capable of supervising the local administration of a county, then you are saying something blasphemous, because that means our extinction." I do not know that we should have much patience with that kind of mentality. We are told that because the county council consists of men drawn from a rather large area it will not know the conditions in the outlying localities, that administration there will be neglected, and that people will have nobody to look after their requirements. I have a fair idea of the size of an electoral area. If six or seven county councillors, elected from an area of that size, are not capable of representing their area within the county council, it is a strange thing. It is because we are thinking in terms of little vested interests, of the little patronage— people strutting awhile on the little stage of the rural district council—and not in terms of value for the money of the ratepayers of the county, that we have such a storm in this rather miserable teacup. If the people learn to look seriously to their representatives on the county council to give them value for the rates they pay, if they take the obvious course when and if they come to the conclusion that they are not getting that value, then the standard of efficiency in the county councils, and within the staffs of the county council, will tend to rise steadily.
The county council is a committee of the ratepayers. The members are themselves ratepayers, but that conception tends to sink into the background, and you have a situation arising in which men who are themselves members of the county council advise people— as I have known them to do—not to pay their rates, because they are not getting fair value for their money. Surely, if a member of a county council thinks that people are not getting value for their rates, he has his remedy; he has his platform. Surely, the very reason of his membership of the county council is to see that such a state of affairs as that does not prevail. If we have six representatives of the ratepayers coming from that comparatively small area, which is an electoral area, we should not be told that they are not capable of seeing that the local administration of the area which they come from is properly conducted, and of voicing any complaints and any grievances that may arise in that area within the county council—provided that they visualise themselves as representatives of the ratepayers of that area, and see that the ratepayers of that area get value for their money; provided that they visualise themselves in that light rather than in the light of people who, by the grace of God, have been given certain powers of patronage until the next local elections come round. I have heard a term used to describe the rural district councils as at present existing. It is a military term—buckshee—superfluous, lagging, unwanted on the stage, because the work they have to do at present and the work they do at present does not justify their existence and could be, I will not say as well done, but better done, more efficiently done, more economically done by the central body of the county.
We are asked by Deputy Baxter to favour a kind of local option—a plebiscite on the important question of whether a district council, which probably has not met for six or eight months, but may be relied upon to meet within the next month to pass a resolution against this Bill, is to continue to drag out its existence. One has a picture of the local rural district councillors, their friends and their relatives and the staff of the rural council, very busy and working hard for a successful plebiscite, so that the necessary 100 citizens may be got to say that "What is is best." What is is not best as regards the rural district councils. What would be best is an efficient county council, with the people insisting that they get from that body value for their money and taking the obvious steps, if they consider they are not getting value for their money. Everyone knows that local administration in the country is capable of being toned up. Everybody knows it should be toned up. Everybody knows that within the staffs of many county councils people are not giving fair value for the ratepayers' money they receive as salary and wages. These are the things that matter to the people. These are the things that the people should be putting up to their representatives on the county council.
The county councils are at fault now—the councils to whom you are handing over the powers of the rural district councils.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The Deputy is welcome to that. I am making the point that the district councils have not, at the moment, work that justifies their existence, that such work as they have they are notoriously neglecting, that the work thus passed over and transferred to the county council will not impose upon that body an intolerable burden or an additional burden which would react on its efficiency, that the best interests of the ratepayers will be served by that central body, provided that its members are made to feel that their duty on that body is to see that the people who pay out heavily, year in and year out, in rates, get value for the rates they pay, and provided that a feeling grows up amongst the people that they send representatives to the county council to be a committee of the ratepayers whose single function is to see that good value is given for the rates paid—whose single function is to exercise a wise and careful stewardship of the people's money.
The little outlying bodies that used to do their work in a hurried twenty minutes after the meeting of the board of guardians have no case for continued existence. I would like to see a table made out showing how many of these councils have met, say, over the last four months. I have no doubt they will begin to meet now. I have no doubt they will nearly all meet to make their little protest against the passing of this particular provision in the Bill. But let a fair examination be made over, say, any six or eight months taken at random. Let us see how often these rural district councils met. Let us see the business they transacted. Let us take up that and ask ourselves whether it constitutes a fair case for the continuance of these bodies as statutory bodies; whether it is not a national waste, even supposing they were meeting regularly, to ask men to give up their time and travel to a meeting-place for that very small bit of work that now falls to be transacted by rural district councils. I do not believe that a county council could not do its work well without meeting three months in the year. I am not prepared to accept that. I believe the county council could do all its present work, and the trifling additional work that would fall to it by the abolition of the rural district councils, very well, meeting no oftener than at present, provided that the members were awakened by the people they represent to a proper conception of what their role and functions are upon that body. The county council, Deputy Gorey says, meets every month, and in addition quarterly. I wonder how many county councils meet every month?
The Local Government records will tell you that.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
But supposing they meet every month, that is twelve meetings in the year. If, in addition, as Deputy Gorey says, they hold special quarterly meetings, that is sixteen days in the year.
Are there no committee meetings?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I am speaking of the main body. That means sixteen days in the year. That is not an intolerable strain on men who stand for election, who ask to be given a certain representative capacity, who ask to be appointed to a position of stewardship of the people's money. Surely, they could meet oftener than that without breaking down under the strain. Supposing they met twice as often as that, would it be an intolerable burden?
Facing up to it squarely, there is nothing in the local administration of a county that ought to be beyond the capacity of fifty or sixty intelligent men elected to that county council to administer efficiently and economically, provided that they have a fair sense of their duties, provided the people behind them, whom they represent, have a fair appreciation of what they are entitled to expect from their representatives on the county council. Do not ask the Dáil to believe that these representatives from an electoral area are not capable of understanding such grievances, such complaints, such looseness as might arise in the local administration within an electoral area and of representing that adequately to the county council and insisting on its rectification.
I am entirely against the idea that there should not be uniformity. I am entirely against Deputy Baxter's idea that a local option, a kind of local plebiscite, should be invited on this question as to whether or not the rural district council as a factor in local administration is to disappear. The sooner we get to the conception that the county council is, as it were, a local parliament administering and supervising local administration of the county, I believe the sooner we will get to a proper outlook and a proper perspective on this whole matter of the value for the rates which the people pay. When you have this dissipation of responsibility, so to speak, when you have a body shouldering the blame on somebody else, you cannot get down to the root of the trouble. You will be able to get down to the root of the trouble when you have simply one single responsibility in the county council, dealing with the rates of the county, answering, as it should answer, to the people for the administration of the rates of the county. You will be told at present by a county councillor that the rural district councils are wasteful, that they are extravagant in their road administration, that their employees are not working——
And the county council is?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
That the looseness there constituted a drain and an extravagance of public funds. At any rate people will not be able to put up that particular case in the future, and such things as are wrong in the county councils, they will not be able to pass over, as one hears them passed over at present, to some other body, or the rural councils. The work that could be done in the past, as every Deputy here is aware, was done in a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes after the board meeting, and it surely can be done at your own county parliament consisting of fifty or sixty members and with seven members from each electoral area.
I think the Minister has been talking with his tongue in his cheek. He really intended by a kind of sidelong glance at the Minister for Local Government to attack the Bill, in so far as it deals with the boards of health, but he thought he would attack it, in that way, by referring to the dissipation of energy and the responsibility lying on the central authority in respect of other matters than board of health matters, because all he said in denunciation of the proposal of Deputy Baxter applied with much more force to the propositions respecting the board of health. The board of health is appointed by the county council—a sub-committee of the council to administer public health affairs. It may appoint local committees consisting partly of its own members and of outsiders who are not elected, and that board of health is not to be responsible to the county council. Where is the unification, the responsibility, the waste, the dissipation of energy, there?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Surely the responsibility of such a committee is the responsibility of the county council. The board of health is a sub-committee of the county council, as I understand it.
An executive sub-committee.
The board of health is a sub-committee of the county council. It submits once a year an estimate and is entirely irresponsible to them. The Minister talked about a dissipation of energy and the sense of responsibility to the body which is elected directly by the ratepayers. Anything that is said in favour of local administration in public health and sanitation matters can be said to apply with equal force to the administration of such matters as roads, lighting, paving, water, libraries, wash-houses, and many of the other small matters that affect a locality, and you are taking from the locality that responsibility and centring it in an authority which is only dealing with the wider affairs of the county. The Minister explains in one phrase how he has arrived at this misconception. He speaks of the county council as a parliament. It is not a parliament. It is an administrative authority. Once you assume the county council is a parliament you are practically saying that the county council will hand over all the administration of the details to officials who will respond once a year with estimates and submit certain general proposals. That is the explanation of this Bill. The county council is to be a parliament and the officials are to be given all power of administration, with an occasional report to the parliament. That, I think, explains a great deal in this Bill. He talked about centralisation of responsibility in defence of a Bill which, in respect of its main provisions, decentralises that responsibility in a way that he has not recognised and is certainly in contradiction to the proposals that applied to the administration of local services outside health services. I think the Minister would have been well advised to consult with the Minister for Local Government about this Bill before he entered into a defence of it.
There is one remark I wish to make regarding the speech of the Minister for Justice. He alleges that some members of a county council advised the people in their own district not to pay rates.
That has nothing whatever to do with this amendment. That statement was altogether irrelevant to the amendment, and it cannot be gone into any further.
Why was the Minister for Justice not called to order then?
The Minister was out of order.
I think he was not told that. In arguing against the amendment, a statement was made by the Minister for Justice that the county councils will have ample time to transact all the business transferred to them from the district councils, as they only meet, at the very utmost, 16 days in the year. I am a member of a county council, and I can say that it takes anything from 40 to 50 days in the year—one day each week—one day for the county council, a day for the committee of management, a day for the agricultural and technical instruction committee, and a day for the county board of health. That would be 52 days in the year, and with the extra work of the district councils it will at least mean another day per week. The Minister for Justice has not really any idea of the amount of labour that would be placed on the unfortunate county councillors. If he had, I am sure that he would not advocate the rejection of this amendment. He further said that the officials of the county council will perform this extra duty. I would like to remind the Minister that the officials of the county councils can at any time resign under Article X of the Treaty, and if you impose extra duties on them they will resign and the county councils would have no option but to superannuate them and appoint other officials. We will have in a very short time in this country of ours nine people out of every ten pensioners and drawing superannuation from public bodies. I think that the Minister for Justice was not right when he said that the county councils would only have to meet 16 days in the year.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
As a matter of information, will the Deputy explain the connection between Article X of the Treaty and the staffs of county councils?
Would I be in order in asking the Minister if he ever visualised an efficient district council and an inefficient county council?
The Deputy has, I think, made a mistake about Article X of the Treaty. It does not contemplate local officials at all; it contemplates Government officials.
Oh, he was taking a broad view of it.
I hold that secretaries of county councils, if you impose any extra duties on them, can resign, and the county council will be compelled to give them superannuation. Whether it is under Article X of the Treaty or not, I know it is right. That will certainly happen. Ministers stand up here and say that it is more or less a pleasure for members of county councils to attend meetings on 16 days in the year, but in some cases you will find that 52 days are taken up, if a member of the county council is a member of different committees, as he generally is. I think that the Minister for Local Government has made out no case against the amendment and I am quite sure that the Minister for Justice has really made a case for the amendment.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
That was my mistake.
I am sure such a kindhearted person does not want to impose too many duties on a member of a county council who is not paid for his labour. Later I am sure that the Minister will agree with my amendment in regard to travelling expenses. I think that the Minister has made no case against this amendment, in fact no one who has spoken from the Government benches has. I think the supporters of the Government ought to be congratulated, as some of them have spoken to-day. Yesterday Deputy Baxter had to force one to speak on behalf of Sec. tion 3. I ask the Dáil to agree to the amendment, and to give the people an opportunity of voicing their opinion as to whether district councils are to be abolished or not.
On a question of procedure, I want to ask the Minister a question.
You want to ask the Minister a question on procedure?
The procedure as to how these councils are going to function as one board. You are aware that contracts have been largely dealt with by some district councils. For instance in Tirconaill, Cavan and Kerry, where roads are dealt with under the contract system, the contractors have to meet at the local district council office to enter into these contracts. In Tirconaill that will mean that they will have to go, in some cases, nearly a hundred miles if they have to go to the county council office. Is any machinery to be set up to give them reasonable facilities to do that, and not to bring them such long distances?
Abolish the contracts system.
As a cure that is one way, but while the contract system remains how is that to be met?
I really think it would be better if Deputies would leave these questions over until we come to the respective sections. The whole machinery of road work will be revised, and it is not really fair to be occupying the time of the House on things that have nothing to do with the section at all.
I notice that we are getting no assistance on this debate from some Tirconaill Deputies who are members of the county council.
Before the amendment is put I want to be clear on this. I put it to the Minister that he should reconsider this section and put up something that may be acceptable all round. If we are told by the Minister that he is not prepared to consider anything in the Bill that would give authority for the establishment of district committees—
I am not prepared to put anything into the Bill that will lead to the election of district committees.
The Minister will not agree to the election of district committees? Are we to take that as an answer—that it means that the Minister does contemplate something like the establishment of district committees by nomination of the county council, or by any other means, that he does anticipate the establishment of district committees, not elected, with certain functions?
As provided for in the Bill.
Will the Minister say where? What section?
We want to be reasonable in this matter, and if the Minister could show us where this is in any section of the Bill I am sure Deputy Baxter will accommodate him.
I shall withdraw the amendment.
I shall be as obliging in this matter as possible, but really we have been on this question so long——
That is because we cannot get the information we asked for.
It is very hard to give an explanation. As I explained, most of the duties would be performed by the county board of health. The only duties really that the county council will have to perform will be those in connection with roads. I do not think that it would be advisable or necessary to set up district committees to deal with roads, but the machinery is there, if necessary, under the Adaptation of Enactments Act, 1898.
Are there not housing, sanitary matters, and other things? I am quite satisfied that the Minister will say that sanitary matters come under the purview of the board of health, but there are questions of sanitation that should be considered by a body other than the board of health. Surely the Minister should consider the advisability of allowing representatives in each electoral area to act as a stationary committee for that area, and appoint somebody to convene meetings constantly?
I would very much like to see these members elected in each electoral area and coming together as a committee, but I would not like to lay down any hard and fast rule making it obligatory. Later on we can discuss this matter.
Would the Minister say under what section of the Bill we can discuss it?
At present, at district councils the only business to be transacted is roads, sanitation, and looking after labourers' cottages. The roads are going fully under the control of the county council; sanitation is going to the board of health, and there still remains labourers' cottages. Perhaps the Minister would see his way to meet Deputy Corish this far, that the members elected for each area could be appointed a committee of the county council to deal with labourers' cottages?
To deal with everything pertaining to the area. They could consider matters without finality in their deliberations. It would ease the work of the county council considerably. Anybody who knows anything about county councils, and I think the previous speaker ought to know as much about them as anybody, knows that it is not possible to deal with the work in one day. The council will be practically in continuous session.
That is not the point. If all sanitary matters are dealt with by the board of health, what would this committee have to do with them?
I think Deputy Byrne knows that the work of the board of health is even more congested than that of the county council.
With regard to opportunities for discussing this committee—I do not like to use the word "committee" because it started all this trouble—if the Deputy puts down an amendment by way of a new section to give effect to what he means, it can surely be discussed, whether the matter is contemplated in any section of the present Bill or not. The Bill deals with local matters, therefore it is very hard for an amendment to be out of order. There is no question of finance or of the Central Fund coming into it, so the matter could be easily brought up in that way.
In the absence of any definite understanding from the Minister regarding his attitude on the question of the devolution of responsibility in local affairs, we are left to decide the question on the statement that the Minister has already made which is against anything like devolution of that authority.
I agree that the discussion has gone a long way off its track, but if it has, it is as a result of the answer given by the Minister to Deputy Baxter. I now say unhesitatingly that this side of the Dáil has been treated scandalously by the Government on this matter, and they have not tried to answer any of the arguments put forward.
took the Chair.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 37.
Tá
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John J. Cole.
- John Daly.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Seán de Faoite.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Michael O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus de Burca.
- Sir James Craig.
- Maighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Darrell Figgis.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- John Hennigan.
- William Hewat.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Risteárd O Conaill. Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Nicholas Wall.
Amendment declared lost.
The question is—"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
In regard to the substantive motion now before the Dáil, I desire to say that I think that a strong case could have been made out, should have been made out, but I do not think it has been made out, for the abolition of rural councils, simply because they do not correspond to any real unit in the life of the country. Although this point has not been put forward in justification of Section 3, I take it that the real argument is that the rural councils, for example, have been described as continuing a lingering life and not functioning at all in the life of the country. That is perfectly true, and everybody who knows the country knows that that is what is happening. Very strong arguments have been put up by those against the section, who say that there should be something more near to the local life of the people, more nearly corresponding to that life than the county councils which are to take over all the functions that ceased to exist in the review and administration of local councils as up to this moment. I was not able to be here yesterday, but I remember reading that Deputy Cooper stated that if somebody came down from ancient days and were to see the rural councils, he would not recognise anything in them that corresponds to the real life of the people or anything that is typically Irish. When one goes back to the historical conditions under which rural councils were established one can see why they did not correspond to anything geographically or economically real in the life of the country. They expressed nothing in which the life of the people ever did, or does now move.
But, although I agree that the facts of the case show that the rural councils have failed to correspond with, and have failed to be moved in any measure by the life of the people, I disagree equally fundamentally, from my point of view, with the taking over of those functions by the county councils. Remember the time when the rural district councils were first drawn up and brought into the life of Ireland—if one may use that expression of something not drawn into the life of Ireland at all—but when they were first imposed on the life of Ireland in an Act which was taken over from another country. When geographical units were drawn over the map of Ireland for rural district councils, how they came to be drawn in the manner they were then, it would puzzle the mind of man to discover, for they are arbitrary outlines throughout. I urge that the county councils are equally arbitrary. If it be true to say, and I think it would, and I would admit at once that the rural district councils are arbitrary units that do not correspond to anything real in the geographical or economical life of the country, then it is equally true that the county councils are arbitrary, and in fact the county areas were drawn even more arbitrarily, when they were first given existence at the end of the sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth century, than those units known as rural district councils.
Take any county that comes to the mind of any Deputy—take Mayo, for instance. Will anyone say that County Mayo suggests any kind of geographical or economic unity, or any kind of conceivable unity at all? Take County Wicklow. I remember in the old days when the political organisation was being conducted, and it was found necessary to convene a committee for County Wicklow, it was necessary to bring the people constituting that committee to Dublin, for they could meet much more easily in Dublin than in any part of the County Wicklow.
While I support fully the abolition of rural district councils, because I think the case made out against them is clear—that they do not correspond to any part of the real life of the country—I do suggest that every argument that is true against the existence of rural councils is equally true, and in many cases much more forcibly true, in regard to county councils. That is what occurs to me as a fundamental fault of this Bill: that it has started to abolish certain things that were unreal, and that it has imposed the duties done by these councils, that are unreal, upon other councils which are equally unreal, whereas what is urgently wanted to be done is to devise some new unit altogether, something not so small as rural district councils, and something not so large as county councils. It would be something that is more clearly and closely corresponding to the life of the people amongst whom it is functioning.
Those new units would not be so very difficult to discover. Every person who has participated in fairs knows that there is a certain community of interest existing in what are known as fair and market centres. There are many units that are geographically in touch with one another, that are woven together as far as their economic life is concerned, and if the local life and local government of the country is based upon those units, we would be able to get away from the unreality of the rural district area and also from the more glaring unreality of the county council area. I support the section that is now before the Dáil, to abolish the rural councils; but I would urge that the task that will be imposed by its abolition has not been included in the Bill. I think experience will prove that the county councils will not merely not have the time, but will not be able to equip themselves for the additional duties which will be put upon them, because they will not have the close correspondence with the life of the areas, the administration of which is their primary concern.
Before the question is put, I would like to remind the Minister for Local Government that at the inception of the Local Government Act of 1898, given to us by England, it was optional with the County Council of Cork to divide that county into two county councils, and have an East Riding County Council and a West Riding County Council. The people of the Cork County Council made a mistake. They did not avail of the option that the Act gave them. There was plenty of room in the County of Cork for two county councils. This is rendered all the more necessary as the interests of the two areas were altogether different. In the West Riding you had a lot of piers along the seaboard and it cost a lot of money to repair them and also for their ordinary upkeep. If it is proverbial that the wise men came from the East, it was not the case that time. The western people had the best of it that time by allowing for the whole county one county council. That being the case, I think the time is now opportune, when this Bill is going through, to ask the Minister for Local Government to make the County Cork into two county council areas. This would be much more equitable all round and——
The Deputy is out of order. The question we are now dealing with is the abolition of the district councils.
I was only reminding the Minister for Local Government of the mistake that was made by the Cork County Council at the time, and I am sure he will remedy that in the Bill that we are now dealing with.
I am sure he will.
Question—"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 38; Níl, 22.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Séamus de Burca.
- Darrell Figgis.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Sir James Craig.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- John Hennigan.
- William Hewat.
- Seosamh Mac Bhrighde.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha. Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Liam Thrift.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Nicholas Wall.
Níl
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John Daly.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhín.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin.
- Seán de Faoite.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 4.
Section 4 merely provides for the automatic substitution of the county councils or county boards of health for the R.D. Councils in cases of law actions pending at the time of the transfer and bonds and agreements not then fully executed. It is consequential upon Section 3.
Question—"That Section 4 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(1) Any joint board, committee, or authority, all of whose members were, prior to the passing of this Act, elected or appointed by the councils of rural districts situate in the same county health district shall, from and after the appointed day, cease to exist, and the powers, duties, property, and liabilities of such joint board, committee, or authority shall be transferred to the council of the county in which such county health district is situate, and such powers and duties shall be exercised and performed by such county council through and by the board of health for such county health district.
(2) The members of any public body in office on the appointed day who were appointed or elected by the council of a rural district shall cease to hold office on the appointed day, and where, prior to the passing of this Act, it was the duty of the council of a rural district in a county to elect members of any public body, it shall, from and after the appointed day, be the duty of the council of such county to elect such members of such public body.
This sub-section shall not apply to any public body to which the first sub-section of this section applies.
Section 5 provides that in cases where members of boards and committees, and so on, are elected by rural district councils entirely inside one county health area, their functions will be transferred to the county council. The rural district councils will be abolished, and when their functions are transferred to the county council, it will, in turn, transfer them to the county board of health. In other cases those committees are to stand, but their members are to be appointed by the county council.
I think this section gives us the opportunity of asking the Minister questions in regard to the committees. The section does away with all the committees that have been formed by the district councils and all the powers of the district councils are transferred to the county council. Does the Minister intend to allow county councils to re-appoint such committees as will be abolished under this section? Does the Minister intend, under this Bill, to give power to the county councils, as elected bodies, to appoint such committees as they think necessary for different districts? Further, I would like to ask the Minister if he thinks it right or fair to have appointed for each district, committees to do the work which an elected body should really do. The ratepayers want to be represented in a proper manner. I think that the ratepayers want the people who are to transact their business for them to be people whom they themselves have elected. These are the people that would be responsible to them and not the people who may be nominated by the councillors whom the ratepayers elected. In other words the Minister is giving full power in another section to committees such as are appointed by the districts. Under this section he is doing away with that power. He is giving power under Section 12 to the nominated body to appoint committees. I think he should explain his attitude as to whether it is his intention to give power to the county councils to nominate these committees that he is now abolishing by Section 5 of the Bill.
I think it would be reasonable to ask the Minister to explain for our enlightenment the effect of this section, and the kind of board, committee, or authority that was in the mind of the Minister when he inserted it; also the kind of board referred to in Sub-section (2). No doubt we could find out if we went through all the Acts and Orders, and made close inquiries, but in presenting a section of this kind it seems to me reasonable to ask the Minister to explain what will be its effect in application.
I think Deputy Lyons' point would be better raised on Section 12. These are only committees of a minor importance, burial boards and trivial bodies of that kind. Where these boards are appointed by rural district councils, all of which come within the same county health area, their duties are transferred to the county board of health, which will appoint the committees. In other cases that cannot be done, and accordingly the appointment of the committees is to be vested in the county councils.
That merely repeats what the section says, except for the statement that included in these boards would be burial boards, so that we have not got very much further. I do not think it is asking too much for the Dáil to request the Minister to enlighten us as to what is intended by the section and what would be the effect of the enactment of that section upon the administration. It seems to me to be part of the duty of one who is piloting the Bill to explain the effect of the technical phraseology.
The Minister says these boards are only minor bodies. The section says:
(1) Any joint board, committee, or authority, all of whose members were, prior to the passing of this Act, elected or appointed by the councils of rural districts.
You want to do away with those who are already elected.
No.
According to this section, all such committees are scrapped. The Minister wants to do away with all such committees, whether elected or appointed by the district councils, and to replace them by some that may be set up by a body that is not elected, such as the county board of health. Personally, I think the Dáil is entitled to a better explanation as to the meaning or as to what the effect of the section will be. Will it result in a saving to the different districts? To my mind there will be no saving. I think we are entitled to know the body we will have to look to in future to appoint such committees as will be required to carry on local administration. I want to see appointments made by the elected representatives of the people and not by persons who do not represent the people, such as those who would be co-opted or appointed by the county council. I think we are entitled to some explanation as to who will have authority to make such appointments in the future should this section be carried.
As I understand this section, it means that at present rural district councils appoint representatives on harbour boards and burial boards. Burial boards are constituted by district and urban councils. In future I understand when the district councils will cease to exist the county councils will appoint such representatives. Is not that the intention?
That is exactly what I understood, with the exception of harbour boards. I think the Minister should help and should enlighten us.
It would be very difficult to say off-hand what particular board can be appointed by a rural district council. I am not in a position to say that now. I know that certain burial boards, harbour boards and boards dealing with sanitation are in existence, but I could not give a clear and specific statement as to the number of boards involved or whose duties it is necessary to transfer from the district councils to the county councils, as well as transferring the power of appointment of these committees.
Does it not follow that all the boards hitherto appointed by the rural district councils will now be appointed by the county councils, whether harbour boards or burial boards? It is simply a transfer of duties from one body to another.
We have that information from members on the Government benches, but we have not got it from the Minister that such bodies shall be appointed by the county councils.
Have you not got it in the Bill?
It is quite clear.
Question—"That Section 5 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Whenever under any enactment passed prior to the passing of this Act the council of a rural district is empowered or directed (as the case may be) to make any periodical payment in respect of any port, fishery, drainage works, burial works, or other similar matter, the council of the county in which such rural district is situate shall be empowered or directed (as the case may require) to make such payment and the amount thereof shall be charged upon the area of such rural district at the date of the passing of this Act.
I move that the section stand part of the Bill. This section is consequential on the transfer of duties. It is put in in order to prevent certain payments lapsing.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
In every county health district in a county to which for the time being no county scheme relates, poor law guardians shall after the appointed day be elected on the like days and in the same manner in all respects as members of rural district councils are now required by law to be elected.
I move that this section stand part of the Bill. Boards of guardians were abolished under the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act. Rural district councils will disappear under this Bill. Rural district councillors were ex-officio members of boards of guardians. If they are not elected, as they will not be after this Bill passes—if there is any necessity again for electing boards of guardians, power will have to be given for that, as they cannot become members of boards of guardians ex-officio. The section is included to make that possible.
Can the Minister tell us how many such areas there are to which no county scheme relates?
Only County Dublin as a matter of fact. This is more or less a courtesy section introduced here as we cannot anticipate at the moment that the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act will be reenacted. We believe that it will be reenacted, but out of courtesy to the Dáil we cannot anticipate that now. If the Local Government (Temporary Provicions) Act were allowed to lapse we would have to re-elect boards of guardians through the country.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I take it it would also cover the case of Tyrone and Fermanagh?
When?
And South Down and South Armagh.
Question put and declared carried.
PART II.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
SECTION 8.
(1) From and after the appointed day, and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section, the area of every county, with the exception of those portions (if any) of that area which are included in urban districts, shall for all purposes form one rural sanitary district or rural district within the meaning of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1919, and the council of such county shall be the sanitary authority for such rural sanitary district or rural district, and such rural sanitary district or rural district shall be called by the name of the county health district with the addition of the name of the county.
(2) At the request of the council of any county, the Minister may by order direct that there shall be in such county two or more rural sanitary districts, and in such case the Minister by his said order shall determine the boundaries of such rural sanitary districts, and the council of such county shall be the sanitary authority for each such rural sanitary district, and each such rural sanitary district shall be called by the name of the county health district with the addition of the name of the county and of such distinguishing name as the Minister shall direct.
Amendment 7 (Tomás O Conaill):—
In sub-section (1), lines 57 and 58, to delete all words after the word "called" to the end of the sub-section and substitute therefor the words: "by the name of the county health district of.................... (with the addition of the name of the county.")
In amendment 7 there has been a mistake in printing. In lines 3 and 4 the words "the county health district" should begin with capital letters.
There is another small change in this. Before the words "the" in "the county health district" there should be one quotation mark. I feel that you would want a blackboard and a piece of chalk to explain this amendment quite clearly, but I think the Minister will see what the object of it is. The Bill sets up a new area. One would imagine from the reading of the Bill that county health district was an existing name for an existing area. Such is not the case. I think it would be much more intelligible if it read as was intended to be put in the amendment. The mistake is not mine.
I do not see that there is any substantial difference in the matter. I do not know whether it is a grammatical point or a technical point.
Mr. O'CONNELL
It makes all the more definite what the title of the particular area will be.
I would suggest that the Minister should get any five members on the Government benches to read the last three lines of that section and explain what it means at first trial. Until they have got the grip of the meaning of it, it does not appear at all clear in its present form.
I think it does clarify the meaning somewhat and I would be prepared to accept it.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 8: In sub-section 2, line 62, page 6, after the word "shall" to insert the words "on the recommendation of the council of such county." The sub-section would then read:
"At the request of the council of any county the Minister may by order direct that there shall be in such county two or more rural sanitary districts and in such case the Minister by his said order shall on the recommendation of the council of such county determine the boundary of such rural sanitary districts."
It seems to me it would be a rather difficult matter for the Minister himself to determine the boundaries of the rural sanitary districts and I think it is necessary to insert those words. It could be done better on the recommendation of the council of the county. Local councils ought to be the best judges of what divisions should be made in any county and beyond doubt their opinion ought to be invited. It is on their recommendations I think the divisions ought to be made in any county. I think it would be rather arbitrary if the Minister himself could make a division in a county, regardless of the point of view of the council or board of health in that county. My amendment will ensure that the council must be consulted and it is on their recommendation the boundary shall be marked in the rural sanitary area if there are to be more than one sanitary district in a county.
The only objection I would see to the amendment would be in the event of the council not doing it the Minister would not have any power then to determine the area. I think it is very proper, as Deputy Baxter says, that the council should be consulted in any division of the area. I am sure they would be consulted, but supposing they failed to do it you would leave the Minister in a difficulty. Would you not?
May I suggest to Deputy Baxter if he put in "in consultation with each county" perhaps the Minister might accept it.
I think I would agree to that. There is just this difficulty: the fixing of these boundaries may involve more than one council. There may possibly be some changes later on that would lead to that, and I would like to have as much flexibility as possible at this stage. However, I think there is no harm in accepting the amendment.
I suggest to the Minister that it is not necessary, because the Order that is to be made is to be made at the request of the council.
The boundary is another matter.
"The Minister may by Order direct," and in such case when the Minister has at the request of the council done a certain thing, it is obvious before he makes any Order that he will be consulting the council as to the wisdom of making such Order, which will include the question of what the boundary should be.
I can quite easily recognise that the council of a county may agree, or the board of health may agree, that a county be divided into two or more rural sanitary areas, but when it comes to marking out the line that is to define these rural sanitary areas that is another matter. The Minister may easily agree at first, but generally what would happen would be that the county board of health would decide that a county would be divided into two or three sanitary areas. That may be as far as they would get. The Minister may come along and, without consulting the Board of Health at all, or the people who decided on the division of the county, mark out the lines where he chooses. I think this is a safeguard. It is better that the people should be consulted. I believe it is necessary.
I agree with Deputy Byrne that the words, "after consultation with," should be inserted instead of the words "on the recommendation of." If that alteration were made, I think it would clear up the matter.
With that alteration made, the amendment would read: "In sub-section (2), line 62, page 6, after the word ‘shall' to insert the words ‘after consultation with the council of such county.'"
Does the Minister accept the amendment as it stands?
I accept the amendment with the alterations suggested by Deputy Byrne and Deputy Sir James Craig.
I agree also to the alteration suggested to be made in the amendment.
Amendment altered, as suggested.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I would like to point out that the acceptance of amendment 7 will involve a further amendment in sub-section (1).
That is consequential and will be attended to on the Report Stage.
Question—"That Section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
(1) In every county health district—
(a) in a county to which for the time being no county scheme relates, or
(b) adjoining a county borough and situate in a county to which a joint county scheme for such county borough and county relates,
the powers and duties of the council of such county as sanitary authority for such district shall, save as is otherwise provided by this Act, be exercised and performed through and by a board to be established in such county health district and to be called the board of public health.
(2) In every county health district in a county to which a county scheme for the time being relates other than those referred to in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of this section, the powers and duties of the council of such county as sanitary authority for such district shall, save as is otherwise provided by this Act, be exercised and performed through and by the body to whom under such county scheme is entrusted the administration of the relief of the poor in such county health district, and such body shall be known as the board of health and public assistance for such county health district.
(3) Any property transferred to the council of a county by this Act may be transferred by such council by order under their seal to the board of public health or the board of health and public assistance of any county health district in such county, and every such order shall operate as an effective conveyance of such property according to the terms of such order, but such order shall not require to be stamped as a conveyance or transfer of property.
This section is necessary for the reason that the term, "Board of Health," includes two kinds of boards, in cases where there is a joint body between a county borough and a county. In those particular cases, there is already a board of health in existence. It is still called a board of public health. At present that body deals with the distribution of outdoor relief. Under this Bill we are adding new duties, and in the ordinary case, where you have amalgamation schemes in operation in the county, and where a board of health already exists, it will be a board acting in a dual capacity. It will deal not only with outdoor relief but with the ordinary duty of a board of guardians. In addition, it will have to carry out the duties formerly carried out by the rural district councils. It will have a dual function, and will accordingly be called a Board of Health and Public Assistance. This section is inserted in order to make that clear.
I desire to ask the Minister whether in the case of a county where an amalgamation scheme has been put into operation, and the county health board established, special committees will be set up to look after the affairs of district hospitals which have been set up. In the town of Athlone there is a district hospital, but under the amalgamation schemes in operation in that county the county home is situate in the town of Mullingar. Some time ago the Minister refused the right of the people of South Westmeath to have a committee to look after the administration of the district hospital in Athlone. At the time the request was made, the cost of the upkeep of that district hospital was borne entirely by the ratepayers of South Westmeath. What I want to know is, whether the people in the areas where such district hospitals have been established will be given power to appoint committees of their own to look after these hospitals. I do not ask that these committees should have full control over the hospitals, but that they should be appointed and be subject to the county board of health or to the Minister for Local Government.
This section has absolutely nothing to do with such committees.
I am now told that the amalgamation of workhouses has nothing to do with Section 9 of this Bill. I would like, however, to point out to the Minister that the amalgamation of workhouses has caused much injustice to the people in the area that I have the honour to represent here. I am voicing their opinions when I ask that they be given control over their district hospitals. In order to expedite matters, I do not wish to press the point this evening. But I would ask that, on the Report Stage of this Bill, the Minister would introduce an amendment dealing with the request that I now put forward.
The Deputy is out of order in raising this matter now. I submit that this is a matter which he should bring before the county board of health. They have more to do with it than the Dáil.
Is it intended that the Public Assistance Committee, which is to be appointed in each area over which the rural district councils now exercise control, will have charge of the distribution of outdoor relief?
The committee will have the supervising of it.
Do you mean that they will exercise supervision over it in their own area?
The Deputy is not in order in bringing this matter forward under this section.
What I want to know is: is it contemplated that the Public Assistance Committee that is to be set up under this section will be empowered to exercise supervision over the home help or outdoor relief distributed in the district in which these committees are set up? At present, it is the county board of health that exercises this supervision.
The county board of health will still retain its present powers.
The county board of health at present administers home health, or what was formerly known as "outdoor relief," over the entire county. What I want to know is, if it is proposed to hand over the administration of home help or outdoor relief for each area in a county to the Public Assistance Committee that is to be set up under this section.
This Bill makes no change and there will be no change made in the present administration of outdoor relief.
Then the public health committee will still have the administration of outdoor relief over a whole county?
Yes; the administration of it.
Will these local committees that I have been referring to have anything to do, say, with the checking of the outdoor relief list?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
What section is the Deputy referring to?
Section 9.
I think the Deputy has got the old Bill before him.
I cannot see that there is any provision here for a local committee to do work of that kind.
I find now that I was looking at the amendments and not at the Bill.
I am quite sure the Minister would assist the passage of this Bill and save a great deal of discussion if, in introducing a section, he would explain broadly, in ordinary layman's language, what the technical language of the Bill means. I think Deputy White might easily be assured that this section provides that the duties of the council of the county, as the sanitary authority, will henceforth be carried through by the Board of Public Health. The Minister has not explained that. It would have assisted the Dáil very much if he had explained it.
I think the trouble was that Deputy White had a different Bill before him and was talking of local committees, which had no reference to this section.
I had not a copy of the Bill before me at all. I had the amendments, and it was to the amendments I was referring. I am sorry for the mistake.
Are we to understand that all the sanitary matters that were in the hands of the district councils under the old regime will now be transferred to the board of health, in addition to the other duties they have to perform?
Does the Minister mean that this body will have power to lay down waterworks and sewerage works, and engage in any other sanitary undertakings of that description which may be required in towns and villages?
I do not think there is very much difference between the committee and the county council. It is a committee appointed by the county council, consisting of members of the county council, and it is absolutely under financial control by the county council. It has got no financial responsibility of its own, and the county council has power to dismiss, by a two-thirds majority, any members of the board of health. I think the county council control over the board of health is pretty complete.
The Minister knows that if a man is elected a member of the board of health, he is not going to be dismissed, whether he is right or wrong.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Why?
Because the members do not wish to make themselves unpopular. I would be quite satisfied if I could get from the Minister what I require for Athlone district. If he says that the elected representatives of South Westmeath—or, for that matter, of a portion of any other county—will be in a position to act as a committee for that area of the county, I am satisfied. I do not want to see a committee appointed by a nominated body.
Surely the Minister has not power to alter or amend the principles of the Bill to suit the particular case that Deputy Lyons brings forward. I think Deputy Lyons might have enlightened the Dáil by giving the history of this particular hospital to which he refers—how it came to be there and who contributed towards it. As a matter of fact, I think the Committee in this matter are getting into a complete fog. I think some of the members are losing sight of the fact that the Bill places the administration of the county in the hands of the county council. The county council delegates to the board of health. The board of health and the county council abolish the duties of the rural district council, so that the whole county, as I understand it, is administered by the county council. The county council is responsible for everything, including sanitary work.
No. That is the trouble.
I do not agree with Deputy Corish. The Public Health Committee that is being formed is curtailed in its operations. It has to get authority from the county council for the programme of works that it proposes to execute.
If I were to satisfy Deputy Hewat's curiosity by giving the history of the hospital, I would have to occupy the Dáil for four or five hours. There is a good deal of history attached to it.
Is it not right to say that the only connection the county council has with the county health board is that it nominates that board and appoints its chairman, and that it receives the demand of the board at the beginning of the financial year? As I understand, that is the only connection between the two bodies.
The Deputy is quite right, as far as he goes. But it is not mandatory on the county councils to accede to the full amount of the demands which they receive. If there are any works proposed to be done, which the county council thinks should not be done this year, they can cut out that item. That has been the case with the boards of guardians. Very often, in recent years, the estimates of the boards of guardians were cut down. The board of health will not have as much power as the board of guardians had. They will be a committee of the county council. That committee sends in a recommendation to the county council for a certain sum of money for home help, to carry out certain sanitary works, and perhaps some new works. The county council can go into the memorandum they receive from their committee and say which of these works are to be done. Of home help assistance, the county council, of course, cannot be a judge. But, in regard to sanitary works and any new works, the county council can exercise their veto, if they consider that the execution of these works would impose too great a strain on the public finances. Those are the relations between the board of health and the county council, as I understand the Bill.
Once the money has been voted, the county council has no more authority.
But they have authority before the money is voted. The board of health sends in a demand for a certain sum, to do various works. The county council examine that demand and say that they will supply a sum sufficient to cover the cost of certain specified works, but that, in respect, say, of the making of a sewer down in Deputy Lyons' constituency, they will not vote the necessary money this year.
In effect, the county council is to be more or less like the committee which votes the estimates. Once the money is voted, the county council has no further authority.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
They have the power of removal.
That can only be exercised by a two-thirds majority. The board of health is to do its work through sub-committees, of which portion only are to be members of the board of health.
I am not quite sure, but I think there is provision somewhere in the Bill which makes it obligatory on boards of health to submit minutes of their proceedings to the county council at regular intervals.
If the county board of health proposes an estimate to the county council and the county council refuses to accept it—say that the estimate is £34,000, and the county council say they will give £30,000—has not the Secretary power to compel to give the £34,000?
Absolutely not.
I think Section 13, Sub-section (1) makes that perfectly clear: "A board of health shall be subject to such conditions or restrictions in relation to expenditure as the county council may impose with the consent of the Minister." I think that gives it absolute control.
Question:—"That Section 9 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Section 10 prevents the board of health from borrowing. Any necessary loans may be obtained from the county council. Article 22, Sub-section (2) of the Schedule to the Application of Enactments Order, 1898, at present limits the borrowing powers of a county council to one-tenth of the rateable valuation of the county. Rural district councils also have borrowing powers which are limited by Section 238, Sub-section (2) of the Public Health Act, 1878. This sub-section retains both these limiting powers. The Application of Enactments limitation applies to the county council in the same way as it always did, and the limitation under the Public Health Act of 1878 applies to those cases where the county council acquires new powers under the present Bill.
Would the Minister say if a committee of management of a mental hospital which had borrowing powers under previous Acts will retain their borrowing powers under this Bill?
The joint committee will have borrowing powers.
I am satisfied.
Question:—"That Section 10 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
On Section 11 I might say that it was thought necessary to make the board of health a corporate body, otherwise it would lead to certain difficulties. For instance, if it were not, it could not initiate prosecutions for public nuisances and other offences of that kind. Such proceedings would have to be initiated by the county council.
Does it not require some justification as to why the board of health should be required to have this separate corporate power? The fact that you are giving the board of health this power raises it, it seems to me, to equality of status—shall I say—with the county council. It is no longer a committee of the county council when you have set it up as "a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire and hold land for the purpose of their powers and duties." It seems to me that by giving this position to the board of health you are removing it at once from the category of being a committee of the county council. You are depriving the county council of much of its authority, and, in fact, in so far as public health services are concerned, you are making the county council a small electoral college for the purpose of selecting a board of health. We have not generally consented to that principle being introduced into our legislation. We did appoint the Dáil as an electoral college for the first election of half the members of the Seanad, but other than that we have not adopted that method, and I think it requires some justification. The raising of the board of health into this position of semi-independence of the county council should be justified by argument, and not allow us to assume that it is right because the Minister says it is right. A very good case may be made for it, but it has not yet been made, and I am not convinced as to the wisdom of removing that power to initiate prosecutions, to hold lands, etc., from the county council to the board of health. It seems to me that if the county council is to be the authority which is to appoint the board of health, and that the county council is the body that is elected and has to raise moneys, it should be the authority to hold the land, to initiate prosecutions, etc. I would like to have some justification for this proposal before it is passed over, and I hope that the Minister will give it to us.
There is nothing novel in this section at all. At present the boards of health, under the amalgamation schemes, are corporate bodies in the same way. I think when Deputies realise the importance of the board of health, what very wide functions it has to exercise, considering that it is over the whole public health administration of the county, controlling hispitals and sanatoria, dealing with home help and the administration of all the health services of the county, it would be a very futile proceeding to tie its hands in the matter of prosecution in cases of any infringement of health laws, or matters of that kind, or prevent it from acquiring, where necessary, land for the purpose of constructing hospitals and other institutions of that kind. It would lead to considerable delay, and probably to inefficiency. I think that it is a very commendable thing to make it a corporate body. So long as the county council has financial control over the proceedings of the board of health I do not think that there is any danger of allowing it to function as a county board.
I would like a little more light on this. Is it not the case that if the board of health is not a body corporate it cannot legally conclude binding contracts? It is obviously ridiculous, if you are setting up a board of health, to say that it cannot make contracts, that every contract for the supply of milk, or anything for a hospital, must be entered into by the county council because the board of health has no legal existence. If that is the case I think it is probably the strongest argument in favour of the section.
I would say that in putting that question I had no very definite views, but I feel that all through this Bill we have a right to call upon the Minister to give some explanation of the effect of any proposals he puts forward, and I want to draw from him some enlightenment as to the purport and intention of the respective sections of the Bill.
I would be only too pleased to facilitate Deputy Johnson in every way, but in a Bill of this kind that is so comprehensive it is very hard for me to know beforehand what information Deputy Johnson expects. I stated previously the reason for making the board of health a corporate body, and I could not give every instance that might possibly arise whereby difficulties would be created by not having it a corporate body.
Under this section will the county board of health be entitled, if it decides to run a farm, to pay £3,000 or £4,000 for a farm, without first going to the county council? The powers and duties referred to in the section would, of course, include the setting up of a dairy if they thought fit, and they could take some of the ranches for that purpose. That might deprive some uneconomic holder in the district of that land, and they get this land under this section without any authority from the county council. The county council has to see that the rates are collected, but that is all the powers that they have. I would like to know if a county board of health decides that in order to grow sufficient vegetables for the patients and inmates they require 20 or 30 acres of land that may be adjoining the county home, will they have power to buy that without authority from the county council?
I think the fact that the county council has financial control over the county board of health is a sufficient answer to Deputy Lyons' question. They cannot purchase land without having money, and where can they get the money except from the county council? As well as that, they cannot do any of these things without the sanction of the Minister.
Question—"That Section 11 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
I move to report progress.