DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1924—THIRD STAGE (RESUMED).
SECTION 53, AMENDMENT 83.
There was a discussion on Deputy Thrift's and Deputy Johnson's amendment yesterday evening, and I was considerably impressed by the arguments from the opposing Deputies. I consider that their arguments really arose from perhaps a divergency of opinion as to what would be the result of the insertion of these words, "extravagant or unnecessary," and that Deputies in opposition to the measure construed those words more from the layman's point of view, while the words in the Bill are intended to have a legal interpretation, which would considerably narrow down their application. However, I realise that the words, perhaps, are a source of irritation to certain people, and I am not anxious to go against opinions very definitely expressed in this matter. This section has been drafted with the intention of meeting a very difficult situation at the present time. No matter what Deputies on the opposing Benches say, there is no doubt about it that there has been a good deal of extravagance in administration of public bodies within the last few years.
I am not altogether laying the blame on individual members of the councils for that. But, at the same time, this is a matter that nobody can really dispute, and I have been forced to adopt very stringent measures in dealing with that extravagance. I have been forced to appoint commissioners to get over the difficulties arising from it. I am not anxious to have to continue using such drastic measures, but some protection of the ratepayers' interests is necessary. There are various ways in which that might possibly be done. There are ways in which I would not like to act in this matter. I might limit the franchise, or limit the kind of people who might be eligible for election to these local bodies, or I might adopt the high-handed measure of appointing commissioners on a much more wholesale scale than I have done in the past. I do not wish to do that, and I thought by putting in a proviso of this sort in the Bill I would be able to get over this difficulty of extravagant payments by making the members of local authorities who were guilty of extravagance and who voted for extravagant proposals responsible, instead of throwing the responsibility on the individuals who signed the advice notes, and who were not morally culpable. It was with that intention that this section was inserted. The word "illegal" is a pretty wide word, and apparently cannot give offence. I would prefer to retain the words "extravagant or unnecessary," and the Bill would be improved by retaining them, but as the Deputies made a strong case against it, and as there is considerable opposition to it, I am willing to accept the amendment.
From the Farmers' point of view, I think these two words are necessary in the Bill. The people who are paying the rates, of course, will be on the board, but they will be over-ridden, and I contend that the insertion of these words here would be a warning to the people administering the local funds that they must not be extravagant or use money unnecessarily. For that reason it does not do any harm to anybody to retain the words, and they do not do any harm in the Bill, and for that reason I hold they should remain.
You were not here to hear the discussion.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 13.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- David Hall.
- Seósamh Mac Bhrighde.
- Tomás Mac Eóin.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Líam Mac Sioghaird.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Séamus N. O Doláin.
- Eamon S. O. Dúgáin.
- Séan O Laidhin.
- Aindriú O Laimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
Níl
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- John Good.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Risteárd Mac Liám.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- John T. Nolan.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Tadhg S.O. Donnabhain.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Seán Príomhdhail.
- Nicholas Wall.
Amendment declared carried.
Question—"That Section 53, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 55.
(1) In this section the expression "county authority" means a county council, a board of health, or a committee or joint committee of a district lunatic asylum, and the expression "authorised committee" means a committee appointed by a county authority and to the members of which the Minister on the application of the county authority, authorises contributions to be paid under this section.
(2) Every county authority shall as soon as may be after the 31st day of March and the 30th day of September in each year pay to—
(a) every member of the county authority who has attended at least three-quarters of the meetings of such county authority held during the preceding six months, and
(b) to every member of an authorised committee appointed by the county authority who has attended at least three-quarters of the meetings of that authorised committee held during the preceding six months.
such contribution (if any) as is authorised by the rules contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act towards the expenses incurred by such member in attending the meetings of such county authority or authorised committee (as the case may be) during such preceding six months.
(3) No contribution shall be paid under this section in respect of any meeting of a county authority or committee thereof which took place before the election of members to such county authority held next after the passing of this Act.
(4) Any person who knowingly makes or allows to be made a false statement for the purpose of obtaining the payment to himself or another of a sum under or in pursuance of this section, shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or at the discretion of the court to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding one year.
(5) Any person who is convicted of an offence under this section shall thereafter be disqualified from being elected or being a member of any local authority and from being appointed to or holding any office or employment under any local authority.
I beg to move:—
In sub-section (2) to delete lines 51 to 59 inclusive and substitute therefore the following:—
"passing of this Act, and at its first and subsequent meetings, pay—
(a) to every member of the county authority who has attended the meeting on the request of the secretary or chairman of such county authority and to whom contributions are payable under this Act, and
(b) to every member of an authorised committee appointed by the county authority who has attended the meeting on the request of the secretary or chairman of such authorised committees,
such contribution (payment of which shall be made at each meeting before adjourning) as is authorised by the rules contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act towards the expenses incurred by the member in attending the meetings of such county authority or authorised committee (as the case may be)."
and to delete in lines 63-64 the words
"during such preceding six months."
As travelling expenses are allowed to members under this Bill, I want to have these expenses paid to the members at each meeting, and not have them waiting for six months for them. The best man in a county may not be in a position to attend meetings regularly owing to inability to pay the expenses. The amendment states "to every member . . . . who has attended the meeting at the request of the secretary or chairman," because up to the present five members of any council could sign a requisition to have a meeting called, and if the chairman refuses to sign the order authorising the secretary to call such a meeting, after the lapse of seven days, those five members could summon the meeting in defiance of the chairman or any other members who may not be in favour of it. It is, of course, often necessary to call such meetings, but many of them have been called for purposes which are not in the interests of the ratepayers, such as passing resolutions condemning one party or another. I think if expenses are to be paid, they should be only paid to members who attend meetings summoned by the secretary or chairman. According to the wording of the Bill at present, a member might have to wait six months before he got his travelling expenses. We have a great many good men in the country who represent the best interests of the community but who are not in a position to wait for payment of their expenses for six months.
I may be told that these are honorary positions and that there were hundreds of people in the Saorstát who were very anxious to be elected to represent the people and who were prepared to make sacrifices on that account. I agree that there were such people, but have the majority of councils so constituted acted in the best interests of the people? Have the members attended the meetings regularly? We find that in many county councils and committees throughout the country it is impossible to get a quorum, and members who travelled 20 or 30 miles to the meeting have very often to go to members living in the town and ask them to attend so that the business may be transacted. The non-attendance is due to the fact that some members cannot afford to lose their day's pay, or to provide the necessary expenses. Members of such bodies who live in the town where the meeting is held cannot very often afford to leave their employment, especially if they are labour representatives, and lose their day's wages. Under this Bill such representatives are in the same position as they were previously, with the exception that they will be entitled to 4d. per mile for travelling expenses.
I think it is not fair to pay one man who attends a meeting and not to pay all the members who attend on the request of the secretary or chairman. Under this section, if you have three or four labouring men living in a town who are representatives on the local board, put there by the votes of the people, they are not entitled to get any travelling expenses when they attend the meetings of that board, simply because they happen to live in the town where the meetings are held. I say that is a great injustice. These men may be in employment, and as a result of their attendance at the meetings they lose their day's pay. Hence, I think, they should be compensated to the extent of getting travelling expenses just the same as the representatives in the country who are to be paid 4d. a mile on the days they attend meetings of the council. Men who have acted, as I have, in the capacity of representatives of the people, know quite well that it would be quite impossible to hold meetings of public boards such as district councils, county councils, committees of management of various public institutions, etc., if it were not for the attendance given by men living in the towns where meetings are held, or by men who reside two or three miles outside these towns. We all know that these are the public representatives who attend meetings regularly. If it were not for them you would seldom get a quorum to transact the business to be done at these meetings. I think I am not asking too much when I make the proposal to have inserted in the Bill words to the effect that payment will be made to every member who attends a meeting on the request of the secretary or chairman.
The proposal in the Bill not to pay members for their attendance at meetings until a period of six months has elapsed will leave them in much the same position as they were in hitherto. I know of very few public representatives who can afford to wait for six months for a refund of the expenses they incur in attending meetings. I may say that the county insurance committee in every county has always paid the travelling expenses of members on that committee. Some Deputies, perhaps, may laugh when I say that at these meetings which I have attended, I have found it almost impossible to get a seat, due to the large number of members present. There is always a large attendance simply because the members are paid their travelling expenses. I know of other men, too, who are paid their expenses for attending public meetings, such as county council meetings, and they always give a good attendance. As regards the payment of travelling expenses to members, I think the secretary of the public body concerned should be empowered to make the payments after each meeting. If that is done, I think a good attendance of members will be ensured at each meeting of our public bodies. In that way you will get men to look after the interests of the people in a proper manner. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.
I may say at once that I have no intention of accepting the amendment. One of the great abuses in connection with local bodies at the present time is that you have a great many members elected on them who never attend, except when some question of pecuniary interest turns up. At other times they never attend, but leave all the responsibility to a few members. I think it well to point out that the payment proposed to be made under the Bill will not be made to any member except to one who has attended three-fourths of the meetings. For that reason, it is impossible to pay members travelling expenses after each meeting. The Deputy quoted an instance of the hardship caused where members turned up, and there was not a sufficient number present to form a quorum to do the business of the board. If the Deputy took the trouble to read the next section he would see that it is provided in the case of a member who travelled to attend a meeting at which a quorum was not present, that the expenses incurred by such a member in travelling to the meeting will be taken into consideration when payments are being made at the end of the six months. The Deputy raised another point about paying travelling expenses to people who live almost next door to the place where a meeting is held. I will undertake to meet the Deputy on the point of paying expenses to the people who incur travelling expenses in order to attend a meeting, but I cannot undertake to pay travelling expenses to people who do not travel.
Even though a man lives next door to the place where a meeting is held, I think it is not too much to ask that he should be paid his expenses if by his attendance at the meeting he is obliged to leave his work and lose his day's wages. The Bill provides that if a man travels twenty or thirty miles to attend a meeting he will be entitled to travelling expenses, but there is no such provision in the case of an elected representative living in a town where the meetings are held. Apparently he is not to be paid even though he loses his day's wages by his attendance at the meeting.
The Bill does not make provision for payment to any man for the time he loses. A member from the country is in just the same position as a man from the town in regard to the loss of time incurred by attendance at meetings. It is only proposed under the Bill to pay out-of-pocket expenses. The Bill does not go so far as to pay all the expenses incurred by members, but it proposes to give a contribution towards their expenses.
I think Deputy Lyons has made one point that is worthy of further consideration, that is, in respect of a man, who has to pay out of pocket a certain sum so that he may be enabled to attend meetings regularly. Such a man really cannot afford to remain out of pocket the sum that has accumulated over a period of six months. I think that is a distinct grievance and fault in the Bill. While I agree that some stimulus is required to ensure regular attendance at meetings, I think Deputy Lyons has voiced a real grievance in the case of a man who may have to pay 10/- in travelling expenses for each meeting that he attends. If he has to attend one or two committee meetings, in the month in addition to ordinary meetings, it would be impossible for him to bear all that expense over a period of six months. Hence, I think that the desire of the Minister to encourage regular attendance at meetings will not, to that extent, be fulfilled. If the Minister would agree to the principle we might be able to find some means of agreement later on. I think that the Minister should try to find some means of paying travelling expenses to members shortly after they have been incurred. That, I think, is a reasonable point of criticism and one that should be met.
There may be something in the point raised by Deputy Johnson. The same point was raised by Deputy Lyons, but at the same time, I think that, as the lesser of two evils, we must allow the Bill to stand. There may be cases where individuals may find it difficult to pay their expenses at every meeting and to wait for a period of six months to get a refund of the expenses they have incurred in travelling. It must be remembered, however, that these persons are in a very much better position under the Bill than they were heretofore. I think it is desirable that we should have this incentive to constant attendance at meetings by not agreeing to make payment unless a member attends three-fourths of the meetings during the period. We may try later on to cover cases of exceptional hardship where members find it difficult to attend meetings unless they are refunded their expenses after each meeting. This section has been very carefully considered. We have gone into it from every point of view, and I do not think there is any good in giving an undertaking that we can effect an improvement on that point.
Would you consider making payment after one month rather than after six months?
If one month were to be mentioned instead of six months, it would be impossible to find out whether or not members were going to attend three-fourths of the meetings. If you are to pay every month you would be paying a member his travelling expenses before he had attended three-fourths of the meetings.
Would you consider making a payment to him at the end of a month provided he attended three meetings out of four held during that months? After all, in addition to the ordinary meetings, it is customary to have a number of committee meetings as well, and if a man were to attend three out of the four meetings held during the month, I suggest that payment might be made to him at the end of the month, as he had attended three-fourths of the meetings held during that period.
Would the Minister think of the possibility of working out the eligibility of a member to receive his expenses as suggested in the amendment if he had attended three quarters of the meetings of the council in the previous six months? That might get over the difficulty. Of course, during the first six months of the council's existence the difficulty would still remain, but after that six months, and as long as a man had attended three-fourths of the meetings of the previous six months, he could be paid for each particular meeting, and that would save a man from lying out of his money for a long time. It might be that the machinery would be difficult and complicated to work, but I think it might be considered as a suggestion before the Report Stage.
I am afraid that to meet that situation it would mean that for the first six months every member would attend in order to qualify to be paid, but after that they would take things easy and the difficulty would be to get a quorum afterwards.
But the money would not be paid to those who did not attend.
But they might have attended three-fourths of the meetings in the previous six months. One object of this Bill is to get members to attend every meeting, and not merely to turn up when some pecuniary interest comes before the council.
I moved this amendment in order to encourage members to attend these meetings. That is why I put the amendment down at all. The section as it stands seems to have been drafted and put together for no other purpose except to deprive labouring men of representation on those boards. The Minister knows well working people cannot afford to wait six months for money that they spend in this manner.
How does Deputy Lyons attend those meetings in Westmeath?
Deputy Lyons was never absent from any meeting, committee meeting or other. I attend every meeting.
That is the best argument against the Deputy's own amendment.
No, because every man has not the same kind of an employer I had. I could work at night and pull up for any time I had lost in the day, and also if I have made a slave of myself on behalf of the people that is no reason why I should ask other men to do the same. I think the Minister spoke completely in favour of this amendment when he stated that the whole desire of paying members was to get them to attend. But he says that if they are paid at each meeting there is no guarantee that they will attend three-fourths of the meetings. If they are paid at the first meeting, will not that be an encouragement to them to attend every other meeting? If they are not paid at the first meeting, men in the same position as myself, working men that may be earning a wage that does not enable them to support their families, will not lose the day unless it is made up to them. These men may be very intelligent, and have the best of brains, and may be well able to look after the interests of people in a proper manner, yet they are deprived of becoming representatives simply because they have no banking account to draw upon.
I only want the Minister to encourage people to attend by paying them day by day when they do attend. That is not asking too much, and you will find it is not an unworkable problem that I have put forward. The Minister will find that it is in the best interests of the Bill and of the people and of local government I put this amendment forward, and in order that men may be in position to attend to look after the business of the people on the committees to which they are nominated. The Minister cannot tell me that working men can wait for six months for these expenses. I say workmen will be deprived of the opportunity of attending these meetings at all, and they cannot seek re-election because they could not afford to attend the meetings. If the Minister reconsiders this matter, I would be quite satisfied to fall in with the views expressed by Deputy Johnson; that members who attend three meetings out of four in a month shall be paid at the next meeting they attend.
The most important meetings in the county council are held quarterly. The council, of course, meets practically every month, and very often, for the past few years, we had meetings every week. Some meetings were called by five members, unauthorised by the chairman or the majority of the council. It may be necessary to give five members such power, but I think people who attend such meetings should not be paid expenses unless the meetings were authorised by the chairman or the secretary of the council. I am sure the Minister is not acting justly, and if he himself was in the position of a working man elected on a council, he could not afford to wait six months for the expenses incurred attending these meetings. I ask the Minister to consider this point, or if not, to consider the suggestion made by Deputy Johnson. If he does, he will be going a little way to meet us and not acting so doggedly as he has in regard to other amendments. It is almost useless to put forward amendments here, because the Minister sets his face dead against them.
I should like to reinforce the statement I made already. The Minister has put this section forward as one of the most important regulating attendance. So far as the class of persons Deputy Lyons has spoken for are concerned, I suppose for 75 or 80 per cent. of such persons, he is going to offer no added inducement or encouragement to them to attend. If a man spends 5/- or 10/- on a journey to a meeting, and if he is a poor man and has to wait for six months before payment, he is going to be out of pocket a very considerable sum for that period. If it is true that non-attendance is caused by inability to pay expenses incurred by attendance, very little improvement will take place in regard to such persons if they have to remain out of pocket to the amount of his expenses for so long a period as six months. It may not matter much for a few weeks, but I think it is asking too much for a man to spend a considerable sum of money on railway or on car journeys, and have to remain out of pocket to that extent for six months. If we are going to use this method of paying out-of-pocket expenses or travelling expenses with a view to inducing greater regularity of attendance, I think we are bound to pay these out-of-pocket expenses almost as they are incurred. A man with reserves will not find any difficulty, but a man who has no reserves is not going to be in a better position for attending meetings at a distance than he has hitherto been.
As I said before, there is some substance in the objection of Deputies to this section, but they must realise that members will certainly be in a better position under this Bill than they were before. This is a very big advance. I am not quite so sure that Deputy Johnson's argument carries the meaning altogether which he gives to it. I am inclined to think that many members attending these meetings would prefer to get money in a lump sum than to get it immediately after the meeting.
If they can afford to wait.
It is likely that if the member were paid immediately after the meeting the money might be spent in some of the nearest houses of recreation, and he might be inclined to indulge in a little more liquid or substantial refreshment than if the money was not paid for six months. If the member gets it in a lump sum at the end of six months he will probably lay it by and it would then really amount to a saving. I think that would be very much to the interest of Labour members attending these meetings. I think that Labour members at present attend those meetings very well even without this added inducement, and I think they probably compare favourably with other members attending such meetings.
We hope that they will attend better in future and in larger numbers.
This will help them to attend better. I think the pros and cons are equal as to whether they should be paid every six months or at the end of every meeting. By accepting the amendment there would be no inducement for them to attend regularly.
I think that the Minister has not really met the case put up by Deputy Lyons and supported by Deputy Johnson. There can be no great difficulty in paying once a month. In fact, I think it would be easier for the officials to do it in that way. I would impress that on the Minister, if Labour makes the point that it is desirable to pay at the end of the meeting. There is a good deal in what has been said, that it is hard on a man, who is not too well off, to wait six months for his money. As a matter of fact, it would be quite easy to pay the members' expenses at every meeting, but certainly it could be no hardship on anybody to pay them once a month. I would urge the Minister, so far as I can do so, to amend the period and make it every month.
The Deputy's speech is an illustration of the difficulty of carrying on when Deputies come in in the middle of a debate and get up to speak on it. I think if the Deputy were here when I was replying to Deputy Lyons in the first instance he would realise that there was a serious objection to accepting this amendment. The great objection to it is that at present you have members elected to the county councils who attend only when matters of pecuniary interest come up, and throw the burden of carrying on the duties of the council on to the remaining members. For that reason the section provides that no member is to be paid his expenses unless he has attended three-quarters of the meetings during the six months. It was only a subsidiary argument I was replying to when the Deputy came in.
The Minister in his second last statement acted as a kind of good father to the members of the different committees. He says that if they were to receive these expenses, this huge sum of money they are to get for attending the meetings—four-pence per mile each day they attend— they would adjourn to the nearest place of refreshment and make beasts of themselves.
That was the meaning of your words—and that it would be much better to get the money all together, put it in the bank and become multi-millionaires at the expense of the people. Surely the Minister does not think that the Deputies are a pack of children, and that he has to take care of them, with a cane over them? He tells us we must do exactly as he wants. Does he imagine that the Deputies have no sense of responsibility in local affairs?
On a point of order, how many times can a Deputy speak?
I only asked the Minister to try, if possible, to give the opportunity to people of attending these meetings. The fourpence per mile is not going to put any man in such an improved condition that he will be independent of an employer. The Minister has not met any part of the amendment, and I have no alternative but to call for a division, and even if I am the only man to vote, I will have the satisfaction anyway of delaying the Bill.
The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 34.
Tá
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- David Hall.
- Connor Hogan.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
Níl
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Seosamh Mac Bhrighde.
- Seoirse Mac Bhrighde.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Tadhg S. O Donnabháin.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Donchadh O Guaire.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Liam Thrift.
- Nicholas Wall.
Amendment declared lost.
I beg to move:—
To add at the end of sub-section (2) the words: "But the member shall only be deemed to be in attendance when he is present in the room of the meeting at a time not more than thirty minutes after the hour fixed for the meeting."
We have heard a great deal on this question of the payment of members' expenses, and while we agree that it is right and proper, I think we should also agree that it is something we should not permit any individual or number of individuals to trade upon. I can see it will be a very easy matter. Now, when conditions are to be changed with regard to the facilities afforded men who are to be public representatives, we might have individuals seeking representation on public boards largely because their expenses were to be defrayed. Perhaps to a certain extent also they might feel their position on these public boards would put them in a position to further, will we say, their own interests or the interests of some of their friends. We might find men who would be elected as public representatives coming to a meeting at an hour when some particular business that interested them in a particular way would be down for discussion. We might have them coming by the way to a meeting and attending to fairs and markets, and really not coming to transact the business of the county councils or other public bodies at all.
It seems to me if expenses are to be paid to men who are elected on public boards, the idea behind it is to pay these men because they come to discharge certain duties in the interests of the public. There should be some obligation on them to come to the meeting and transact the business or to take some part in the business of a body before they can conscientiously claim expenses for their attendance there. I do not agree that a member of a county council or board of health or committee of agriculture, or any other man in a representative capacity, can be deemed to be in attendance at a meeting if he comes in when you have the business of the day half through, or more than half through. I do not believe such an individual should be in a position to claim expenses for attendance at that meeting, because I cannot see that a man coming in when the business is almost finished, can be deemed to be in attendance at all. It seems to me there is a reason for the acceptance of the amendment, otherwise I believe it is beyond question this section of the Bill will be open to be traded upon. I think the Minister should be as keen as anybody else to see that there will not be any opportunity for abuses, and I am afraid, as the section stands at the moment, there will be opportunity for abuses, because we know that no matter what effort is made, every individual who will stand in the interest of the public, to represent them on public boards, cannot possibly be of as high a type or as high a standard as, perhaps, the great majority. It is to prevent abuses which are very likely to occur that I put down this amendment. I hope the Minister will accept it, and if he does not, I want to hear what he has against it.
I would like to support the idea that Deputy Baxter has in mind, but I suggest that his own proposal does not meet the end he has in view. Even with the proposition included in the Bill, it would be necessary only for a member to attend at the early stages of the meeting, and, having his name recorded as being in attendance, he could leave to go to a meeting of another committee. Some of us, perhaps a great many members of the Dáil, will know of practices even when there is no question of payment of expenses, especially a year before the election, where the councillor would have his name recorded as being in attendance at as large a number of meetings as possible, but would merely attend for the purposes of his record and then leave. I think something more than that is required, something more than even Deputy Baxter has suggested. I think it would require to have some kind of certificate from the chairman and secretary that the person concerned had been honestly in attendance for the greater part at least of the meeting. I would like to say, for the whole of the meeting, but that might be used in evidence against members of the Dáil on some future occasion.
The requirement in this matter is that persons claiming payment of expenses for attending at a meeting should be honestly in attendance doing the business for which they are called to attend, and the mere recording of attendance, either for the first half of the meeting or at any subsequent stage of the meeting, would not be enough. I think some kind of certificate will be required from the chairman and the clerk in attendance before a record for paying purposes would be accepted. I do not think that the amendment in its present form would satisfy the requirements or meet the end that Deputy Baxter has in view.
I, too, look on this amendment from the same point of view as Deputy Johnson. I sympathise with the idea that Deputy Baxter has in view, but as Deputy Johnson said, I do not think the words will give effect to the idea that is in view. It would mean that any member of the board could attend at any time between the hour at which the meeting was called and thirty minutes afterwards, and then leave again. That is not attendance in the proper sense, in the way that it is understood. I consider an attendance only a good attendance if the member attended during half at least, or two-thirds, of the time taken for the disposal of the business on the agenda. I would even be inclined to go as far as Deputy Johnson and say that he should attend until the whole business on the agenda has been disposed of. Members of public boards know that it is rather a common custom to see at the ordinary meetings a few members who will give almost all the time necessary to dispose of the agenda, but a special meeting is held, or a meeting at which some important matter is being discussed—an election, or jobs, to use a word that is pretty well understood—and you find a very fine attendance.
The moment a certain item on the agenda is disposed of you see a number of people looking for their hats and coats, and you do not see them again. This is the kind of thing that these people, representing the public interest on these boards, should be made to realise, and if they are to be paid I think the least that might be expected is a proper attendance for that payment. I am greatly afraid that the words of the amendment do not ensure such an attendance. I would appeal to the Minister to adopt the principle that Deputy Baxter, Deputy Johnson and I have in view, and on the Report Stage to introduce a form of words to ensure that the member attending will give a real attendance, in the sense that we understand the term. If the Minister would meet the matter in that way I think he would satisfy every Deputy.
It is not often that we have such unanimity on an amendment as we appear to have in this particular case. I think that Deputy Baxter was wise in bringing forward this amendment, and I am willing to accept the principle of it, but I think that Deputy Johnson and Deputy Gorey have followed a line of argument that is very effective. The amendment will get over the difficulty of a member only turning up towards the close of a meeting, but we also want to get over the difficulty of a member coming for the first half-hour and then going away before half the business is concluded. It will take some time to hammer out the best form of words to embody this principle, but I undertake to bring forward some form of words for the Report Stage which will probably meet the wishes of everybody.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question:—"That Section 55 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 56 agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.
SECTION 57.
The object of Section 57 is to bring the Libraries Acts into conformation with the new legislation which makes the county council the central authority for the administration of the county. At present the Libraries Acts can only be adopted by rural district and urban district councils; there is no machinery whereby they can be adopted by the county council, and our experience in Ireland, and the experience in England also, is to the effect that it is much better to have these library schemes carried out by an authority which operates over a larger area. The circulating library system has been found to be very much the most effective kind, and by allowing the county council to become the library authority we will be able to foster this system. This section also meets the wishes of the Carnegie Trust, which has allocated a very large sum of money for the purpose of establishing libraries in Ireland. A sum of £45,000 has been allocated for this purpose between the years 1921 and 1925, and the allocation of that sum is really dependent upon the passing of a measure of this kind which will enable the Libraries Acts to be put in force by the county authority. Otherwise, this sum of money may be devoted to some other purpose, possibly not an Irish purpose. Accordingly I would impress upon Deputies the necessity for accepting this section.
There is one point with regard to the carrying into execution of the Libraries Acts that I want to raise on this section. It has been held, I believe, that under the existing Libraries Acts it is illegal for the committee of a library to spend money on anything other than the purchase of books and absolutely necessary administrative expenses, the salary of the librarian, and so on. In one or two cases library committees organised lectures in order to interest the public in the books in the library and give them some guidance as to what they should read. Although the cost of the lectures did not carry the amount spent on the library beyond the penny rate, yet they were surcharged with the cost of them. It was not a very great cost; it was only the fee to the lecturer, his expenses, and so on, but I believe it was held to be illegal. I know that in my constituency, in Rathmines—I am sorry that Deputy Sears is not here, because he knows more about it than I do—this was stopped. The committee has succeeded in organising children's lectures in the library because they were able to do it by employing to give lectures an official of the library who was paid out of the funds as an assistant librarian. I have the syllabus which covers the five lectures. The first was "Táin Bó Cuailnge"; there was a lecture on "How Our Country is Governed"—the Oireachtas, Public Services, Local Government, and Taxation—I should think that lecture would take more than an hour; I should be very sorry to deal with taxation in less. Then there were "Folk Talks on Shakespeare," and also "A Talk on Citizenship." What the library committees want to do is to carry on that practice and extend it to the case of adults.
Children who have got into the habit of attending these lectures should not find when they grow up that lectures will not be any longer provided for them. The Committees cannot do that merely by employing members of the staffs as lecturers, because for adult lectures you must have outside people who have special knowledge and have studied the subjects, and you could not continue to have the lecturers drawn from the staff. Were it not for the fact that this section is one of the sections that do not apply to the city and county of Dublin, I should have put down an amendment dealing with this matter, and I propose to put down such an amendment to the Bill dealing with the city and county of Dublin. At the same time, it would be anomalous to have one law on the matter existing in the county and city of Dublin and another law, say, in Cork and Limerick, and I believe the public library committees in Cork and Limerick are anxious to organise such lectures.
I would ask the Minister to give the matter his consideration with a view to seeing if on the Report Stage he cannot bring in an additional sub-section to deal with the matter. This is not a question of the waste of the ratepayers' money at all; the penny rate will not be exceeded. It is merely a question of whether money ought to be spent on books which may not be read, or in teaching people the kind of books that will interest them, and the lessons they could learn from them.
I want to support the views of Deputy Bryan Cooper on this matter. I have sent in an amendment already for the Report Stage. Perhaps if the Minister has had time to look at this amendment he would be willing to accept it now. It reads as follows:—"The powers of the library authority under the Public Libraries (Ireland) Acts, 1825 to 1920, shall include power to incur expenditure out of the library rate on the provision of public lectures and exhibitions, whether the admission to such public lectures and exhibitions is free or subject to such charges or conditions as the library authority may determine, and libraries in schools." I think that it may easily be shown that the value of the library will be multiplied several times if there can be added to the actual library work lectures and explanations of assistance to the readers. As Deputy Bryan Cooper said, the proposal will not add to the expenditure but will allow expenditure of a slightly different course than is at present within the statute. That extension will add immensely to the value of the library, and I think in all respects it is very desirable to make the fullest possible use of, and get the fullest possible value out of money spent on public libraries, and that we should not have, as we see at present, books on library shelves not read, and when read, only half understood. I think that there are great possibilities in the combination of lectures and reading and that that combination is going to add greatly to the value of the library. The moneys spent out of the library rate will be very much more valuable with this assistance. Perhaps the Minister would indicate his acceptance of the amendment now and avoid bringing it up on the Report Stage.
I desire to support Deputy Cooper on this point. For several years I was a member of the Rathmines Township Library Committee, and I remember how very clearly the wishes of the Committee to do something useful on the lines Deputy Johnson referred to were baulked by their lack of power in this respect. Many ideas were put before the Committee that might have borne fruit if they had this power. The question of libraries in schools is an important one. Deputy Johnson has referred to it. Even though this Bill does not refer to the city and county of Dublin, I think some such amendment as Deputy Johnson read to us should be included in this Bill. There are other libraries in the country, apart from the city of Dublin. I have in my hand here an amendment which runs very much on the lines of that which Deputy Johnson read. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept an amendment which embodies the ideas of Deputy Johnson.
I would like to support what has been said by the Deputies on the matter of those lectures. It is not possible, in view of the present state of legislation, to hold those lectures, as has been pointed out. On the other side, perhaps the most important development is on the line of those lectures. They have been found most useful and helpful, and anything that will help towards raising the standard of education amongst our people ought to have the support of the members of the Dáil. Consequently I hope the Minister will favour the proposal put forward.
I understand from the statement of the Minister that it is intended to work this scheme of libraries in conjunction with the Carnegie libraries. I may say that I am a member of one of these branch Carnegie libraries, and I can say that they are of very little educational value. The books they stock are mainly, if not exclusively, the lightest of light literature—something, I suppose, like what a distinguished prisoner of late complained of being supplied with. I know that requisitions have been sent in for a different class of books—books of an instructive nature, such as books of biography and travel. But these books have not been supplied, and no reasons have been given for the omission. From time to time, books have been exchanged, but they are all of the same type—novels and light literature. I think if the Minister is going to have this scheme worked in conjunction with the Carnegie library, he ought to see that a different class of books is supplied.
Before the Minister replies, I would like to say that so far as my experience goes—and I have been instrumental in securing the circulation of quite a number of Carnegie library book-boxes—the quality of the literature is not at all that which Deputy Conlan suggests it is.
I have personal knowledge of it.
I think it is very largely a question of the selector. It is not the Carnegie Library Trust that says what is wanted. So far as my experience goes, they will respond to whatever the demand is. Their general desire is to send educational literature of the heavier kind rather than light literature of the amusing kind that Deputy Conlan speaks of. I could, within a very few minutes, take Deputy Conlan into two or three libraries where he would find books on constitutional history, economics, the constitutions of the world, the political developments of Europe, Dominion history, philosophy, geography, and other subjects of that character. There are no other books in these libraries—no light literature at all. I suggest that Deputy Conlan got into rather a bad groove—that the person who made the requisition has not requisitioned the right kind of books. Certainly my experience—and it has resulted in the distribution of quite a considerable number of books from the Carnegie Trust—is entirely different from that of Deputy Conlan.
On a point of explanation, may I say that in conjunction with two or three other members of the branch library I spoke of, I made out a list of books, and these books were not supplied. But there is a continuous stream of light literature.
I suggest that the question can probably be solved. Deputy Johnson is getting all these books and Deputy Conlan cannot get them.
We have all a good deal of sympathy with the opinions expressed here by the Deputies of the different parties. I myself have always been impressed with the importance of lectures of this kind. They certainly develop a taste for reading and encourage persons to go more fully into the subjects treated of. I think it is a very commendable practice, but Deputies are aware that this section does not apply to Dublin at present. Dublin, I think, is more concerned with the application of this amendment than any other part of the country. That is particularly so of Rathmines. I had the advantage of spending many pleasant hours in Rathmines Library, and it certainly is a credit to Deputy Thrift and to the other members of that Committee. I suppose it is one of the most up-to-date little libraries in the country. At the present time the country districts are very far behind in this matter, and before we can make any advance on this question of libraries we have got to get the books.
One of the objections made against the Carnegie system in the past was that they went in for very extensive buildings in which there were no books. We might also incur the danger of having lectures and not having books to enable people interested to pursue their studies to a profitable conclusion. I think it would be much better to allow this section to operate and to allow the country in general to come up to something approaching the standard attained in the city before applying this amendment. The country, I may say, is very backward and there are very few of these libraries in existence at all. Before accepting an amendment of this kind, which would have very far-reaching results, I would like to be able to consult with the Minister for Education. We are all in sympathy with the idea. Certainly, if we had the books and the libraries throughout the country, these lectures would be a very valuable educational addition.
I am rather surprised at Deputy Conlan's remarks. The class of books you have in the local library, I think, depends largely on the local committee. Of course, the law of supply and demand governs, to a great extent, these things, and we all know that the demand for light literature is very much greater than the demand for solid literature. As Deputy Johnson has pointed out, the Carnegie Trust has gone out of its way to try to push the circulation of books of a more solid kind. But it is not possible for them to overcome the tendency of people to indulge in light rather than in heavy literature. I would be prepared to look into Deputy Johnson's amendment, but it is a matter that will require very full consideration. I really think it would be better to allow this section to go as it is, and later on, when we would be applying this Bill to Dublin, we might be in a better position to insert an amendment to carry out the views of the Deputy.
My experience may be rather unfortunate but I stand by what I have said.
I would really press the Minister to go the other way about this matter. I think he would be taking a better line if he introduced the subject in a general Bill of this kind— in a very tentative way, if he so desires. It would be quite easy to confine the section so as to prevent more than a certain percentage of the total expenditure to be expended in this way. It would be quite easy to see that the section would not be worked in any extravagant way. It is really an important matter to get an opportunity of introducing and I would urge the Minister to discuss the matter with the Minister for Education and see to what extent he could proceed on the Report Stage.
I desire to intervene in this debate for a moment to say that there are many centres with libraries that are not Carnegie libraries. The Carnegie Trust has nothing to do with them but they are the same class of library. The library I have in mind is one of the oldest in the country. It is in existence since the Libraries Act was first passed, and it has never got a grant from the Carnegie Trust or anybody else. The expense is all met out of rates, and an additional rate of a penny in the £ has been struck this year, with the consent of the Department of Local Government, to provide the people with proper literature. I think it would be a good thing if these people had authority to provide lectures. I do not mean to say that there should be a large amount of money spent on lectures, but in the winter season, when the people have an inclination for lectures, it would be a good thing if they had an opportunity for indulging their taste. I think the Minister should try to see if he could allow these committees to spend a small sum of money on lectures as has been suggested.
I would like to impress on the Minister the view urged by Deputy Professor Thrift that he should approach this matter from a different viewpoint to that which he proposes—that he should seek to introduce some provision such as I have suggested, with whatever safeguard he would consider necessary, after consultation with the Minister for Education. Though it is certainly true that the country is somewhat backward in the matter of libraries, this is only a permissive sub-section, and we want to give the opportunity to the urban council or the county council which is in advance of the other bodies, to do what the Minister agrees would be desirable in the case of, say, Rathmines. It would be a pity to have to wait for another Local Government Bill to be introduced to grant this power to the country districts.
I am sorry that the question of this provision regarding libraries should have been made inoperative in respect of County Dublin. I hope it may yet be found possible to insert an amendment of this kind, so as to make it applicable to the City and County of Dublin. But if the Minister feels that that is not possible, in view of the proposed changes, let us give powers to the country districts and to the smaller towns to apply some of their library rate for this purpose, with such limitation as the Minister himself may desire to impose in regard to the proportion of the money which may be spent on lectures, school libraries, the ordinary lending library or the reading room. I do not want to press the Minister to say definitely now that he will accept this sub-section, but I would strongly urge him, especially in view of the general support that this proposition has received, to consider the matter with a view to inserting such an amendment on the Report Stage.
I rather regret that Deputy Johnson has followed the Minister's bad example in talking about country districts. This section does not apply solely to country districts. It applies to the City of Cork, to Limerick, Waterford, Sligo, Dundalk and other towns, which have good libraries and which are as anxious to develop their libraries and create interest in them as Dublin or any of the townships around Dublin. I would urge the Minister to reconsider Deputy Johnson's amendment—not to accept it now, but to reconsider it before Report Stage and see whether by the insertion of such words as "subject to the consent of the Minister," it could not be made acceptable. We should not impose an absolute legal bar on committees that are anxious to develop interest in their libraries. I quite agree that in a county where the library system is practically new, it would be a mistake to spend money on lectures. But the Minister could take power to stop action of that kind. He has taken such power in a great many other cases, and I cannot see why he should not take it in this case.
I did not hear the beginning of this discussion, but I would like to ask the Minister a question about the obligations of the Carnegie Trust Libraries in the counties. As I understand, a county council, by passing a resolution agreeing to take over the libraries, can do so after a certain period. The Carnegie Trust for a certain number of years will have the books supplied free to these libraries. What I want to find out is, what happens when the Carnegie Trust hands over the library to the county council. It seems to me that, from the point of view of supplying books to the people in the rural districts, the scheme will not be very satisfactory. I do not think that there is any machinery for supplying boxes of books to outside districts. The necessity for books exists more in the outlying rural districts than in the towns. In the towns there are at present other libraries, but in the small villages and in out-of-the-way districts there is no access to books of an instructive type. I have been rather puzzled as to what shape these schemes will take in the future.
The object of this section is largely to bring about what Deputy Heffernan desires—that is, to facilitate the greater development of the circulating system. As a matter of fact, the further continuance of Carnegie support for schemes in this country is dependent upon having a centralised system in each county. It has been found to be more efficient in England and, where it has been adopted in this country, it has also been found to be more efficient.
Instead of centralising the libraries in one county authority, meaning slower development of the library system in the county, it will bring about a much more efficient and a much more rapid development. In regard to the points raised by Deputy Cooper and Deputy Johnson, I am in full sympathy with the principles that they have expounded; but there are a great many practical difficulties in the way. Take, for instance, that in some particular county it is decided to give a lecture touching on the history of the last 10 years in Ireland. I can imagine that if Deputy Cooper or myself, or perhaps Deputies who are not now sitting in the House, happened to be ratepayers in that particular county, they might have reason to object very strongly. It might, perhaps, be very hard for us to come to unanimous agreement as to the kind of lecture we should like to hear.
Would not that also apply to the books?
It is quite possible that in the case I have instanced, we might object to subscribe for any such lecture. I will, however, take the matter up with the Minister for Education in the meantime, and if we can hit upon a safeguard sufficient to permit of putting this idea into operation, I would be only too pleased to accept it.
I am sorry that the Minister has not answered my point. My difficulty is mainly with regard to the distribution of books amongst people in outlying districts. The Minister has not, so far, indicated any suitable method of distribution. I would point out that the ordinary postal system is not suitable. People usually would like to have books available in centres close to them. Perhaps something might be done in the way of supplying books to co-operative societies, farmers' unions, labour unions, or any other such organisations. In that manner books could be handed over to responsible officials for distribution amongst the people. I believe that if books are kept in a central depot, in the principal town of a county, they will not be so available for the people generally as they should be. Unless some better method of distribution is devised, the people will in future be no better off than they were in the past.
They could get them now through societies.
Of course I am aware they can get books supplied through societies and by means of the Carnegie Trust; but could not some system be devised of distribution through the county council?
I do not propose to lay down any hard and fast rule for county councils. We will have to assume they will have a certain amount of intelligence and that they will be able to see that the books are distributed properly amongst the people of the county. Probably different counties will adopt different systems. There are a few counties that have adopted the scheme up to the present, and in those counties matters seem to have worked out satisfactorily. In Tirconaill, which is one of the few counties in which a scheme is operating, fully 50,000 books have been distributed in 20 months; equally good results are being obtained in Kilkenny, Wicklow and Sligo. Tirconaill's record is rather a good one. I have no idea what particular machinery will be put into operation in the case of different counties. That, in my opinion, is purely a matter for the local committees.
Question—"That Section 57 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 58.
I beg to move the following amendment:—
To insert before Section 58 a new section as follows:—
"Sub-section (7) of Section 9 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall be amended by omitting all the words in the sub-section following after the words ‘in proportion to,' and substituting therefore the following words:—‘the average number of lunatics from each county each financial half year, and the committee for the asylum shall be a joint committee of the counties (determined in case of dispute by the Minister) in proportion to the average number of lunatics from each county during the three local financial years which ended next before the last triennial election of county councillors. The resident medical superintendent of the asylum shall within ten days from the expiration of each such triennial period furnish to the Minister and to each council a return showing the average number of patients resident during the said period, and the proportionate representation to which each council is entitled on the basis of such average, provided that no council shall have less than four representatives. In the calculation of averages under this section, the nearest whole number shall be taken by discarding fractions less than one-half and reckoning as one fraction of one-half or more than one-half.'"
The Act of 1898 leaves the apportionment of expenses of an asylum, to which patients come from various counties, to a certain system. That is based on taking an average of the patients for the preceding three years. Now, I understand this system leads to a good many anomalies and injustices, and I can quite see that such could take place. I imagine that the system proposed in the amendment which would actually apportion the expenses according to the number of patients coming from a county in an existing half-year, would be much fairer and would be a more reasonable way of apportioning such expenses. I do not think there would be any practical difficulty in working out the half-year plan. Without going too closely into detail, I am putting the amendment forward in order to hear what is the proposed attitude of the Minister.
This amendment deals with two matters, the apportionment of the cost of maintenance between the councils concerned, and the membership of the joint committee. The amendment proposes to substitute a half-year for a three years' average as the basis of a contribution. I am in agreement with that idea, and I consider it is an improvement; but the existing provisions relating to representation have worked very well up to the present, and I do not see any good reason at the moment to alter them. If the Deputy is agreeable to withdraw the amendment now, I would be willing to bring in an amendment on Report Stage that will probably cover the main points of the argument.
I am quite satisfied. I thought the representation point was so unimportant that I did not even refer to it. The question of basis of apportionment, to my mind, was the principal matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move:—
To insert before Section 58 a new section as follows:—
"The grants in aid of the costs of lunatics in district lunatic asylums payable under sub-section (2) (c) of Section 58 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall be paid to county councils through their asylum committees."
There is no question of principle involved in this at all; it is a question of the mode of payment. The present practice is that the money goes direct from the Government to the county councils, and very frequently the money is not paid to the asylums until absolutely the last date upon which such payment should be made. Very often the asylum has to try to work without having any funds at its disposal in order to meet its day-to-day expenses. This amendment does not interfere in any way with present authorities; it merely suggests that payment should be made direct to the Board which has the actual distribution of the money.
I cannot agree with this amendment. All through this present Bill absolute control of finance by the county council has been insisted upon, and I cannot make an exception in this particular case. I am aware, in some few instances, there has been a delay on the part of county councils in meeting the obligations with regard to asylums; but these were abnormal cases, and, as things become normal in the country, there is no reason to anticipate that we will have a continuance or repetition of such things. Subventions in relief of rates are properly made to the rate-making authority, and there is no reason why we should depart from this precedent without some very strong reasons for doing so.
Subventions which are made, and which are here called grants-in-aid, have been made on a basis which is not at present in accordance with the cost of the lunatics. That is, they are based on the cost when the cost of living was very much lower than at present. I would ask the Minister to agree to accept an amendment on Report that will provide that half the cost of these inmates should be borne by the grant-in-aid.
I do not think that the Deputy's question is germane to the Bill at all. I am not in a position to agree to it. As I explained on several occasions, we are getting a Commission to go into all these questions of lunacy, and until they bring in a report I am not going to deal with one of the most important points that can be raised before that Commission.
I am sorry the Minister has taken this line. I do not think any control rests with the county council in regard to this particular money that is referred to. I rather fancy that they act merely as a channel. Perhaps he would say, in corroboration of what I have been saying, whether it is true that certain grants go directly from the Government to the county council now, and that the county council is merely the channel, or whether the grants go directly from the Dublin Department to the asylum board.
Amendment put and negatived.
Question—"That Section 58 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 59.
(1) No person shall hold any office of profit under or be employed for remuneration by or under any local authority from and after the holding of the election or appointment of members to such local authority held next after the passing of this Act while he is or within twelve months after he has ceased to be a member of such local authority, or of any other local authority whose functional area is, or is situate in, the same county or county borough as that of or within which is situate the functional area of such local authority or, save with reference to and sanction of the Minister, in any county or county borough adjoining to that county or county borough.
(2) Any member of a local authority whose membership is terminated by his resignation or otherwise, at or before the next election or appointment of members to such local authority after the passing of this Act shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have ceased to be a member of such local authority on a date twelve months prior to the date of such election.
I beg to move my amendment, as follows:—
Before Section 59 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) If the council of any county borough or urban district are of opinion that there is a demand for allotments for the labouring population in their area, and that such allotments cannot be obtained at a reasonable rent and on reasonable conditions by voluntary arrangement between the owners of land suitable for such allotments and the applicants for them, the council shall provide a sufficient number of allotments and shall let such allotments to persons belonging to the labouring population resident in their area and desiring to take them.
(2) The duty of the Council to provide allotments under this section shall not include the duty of providing allotments exceeding one acre in extent.
(3) The council may, for the purpose of providing allotments by agreement or otherwise purchase or take on lease land whether situate within or without their area, and may improve any land acquired by them, and adapt the same for letting in allotments as they think fit.
(4) The rents of the allotments shall be fixed at an amount not less than such as may reasonably be expected to ensure the council from loss, but in calculating such loss any expenses incurred in an unsuccessful attempt to acquire land for allotments shall be excluded, and subject as aforesaid such rents may be from time to time charged as are reasonable having regard to the agricultural value of the land: Provided that if the Minister is satisfied that the rents to be charged for any allotments, if calculated in the manner aforesaid would be greater than the persons for whom the allotments are required could be reasonably expected to pay, and that the need for the provision of such allotments is urgent, he may authorise the council to fix and charge such lower rents as he may think expedient.
(5) Every council which provides allotments under this section shall establish an allotments committee, a minority of members of which shall consist of persons who represent the persons for whom allotments are provided or are otherwise specially qualified, and the allotments committee shall advise the council on the exercise of its powers under this section and the council may delegate to the allotments committee, with or without restrictions, any of their powers under this section.
(6) For the purpose of this section the provision of allotments shall be deemed to include the provision of land for common pasturage.
This is a new section, and it is a long one, with six sub-sections. The intention is that where there is a demand for allotments for the labouring population, and where such allotments cannot be obtained at a reasonable rent, and on reasonable conditions by voluntary arrangement between the owners and the applicants, the council should provide a sufficient number of allotments and let them to persons belonging to the labouring population living in the area and desiring to take them. These allotments are not to exceed one acre in extent. The rents shall be at an amount not less than what shall reasonably be expected to insure the council from loss, but in calculating such loss, any expenses incurred in an unsuccessful attempt to acquire lands for allotment shall be excluded.
The general intention is to enable county councils, county borough councils or urban districts to provide allotments for wage-earners. It has been said that the demand for allotments has fallen off since the slump in prices. It may be that the war period was the high-water mark of the allotment cultivation, but I think we should be hopeful of a revival of the demand for allotments, and it is a demand which we should encourage. Notwithstanding the fact that there has been some falling off in the use of allotments, there are in many parts of the country people clamouring for an opportunity to cultivate a small patch of garden for their own use. I hope it is not necessary to make any strong appeal for the principle. It has been adopted in some boroughs.
This amendments is to enable county councils and urban councils to do what boroughs have been able to do in the past, and I hope the Minister will accept the general intention, even if the actual language of this section is not acceptable. Before attempting to enlarge upon the matter. I would wait, perhaps, for the Minister to say whether he accepts the principle of the proposal or not.
With the general intention of this amendment, I believe that I, with every other Deputy in the Dáil, am in full sympathy and agreement. I am sure that it would be impossible to give effect to the intention which this amendment embodies, in this particular form. Last year this question because urgent, and I had a consultation with the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, and we actually had a Bill drafted to meet this particular situation.
Owing to various circumstances at the time, particularly the stress of work, and the fact that more important Bills were on, we had to drop the matter. As a matter of fact it was a problem that was being dealt with by the Minister for Agriculture. It had not come into my particular bailwick. That was a very long Bill. It ran into seventeen or eighteen sections and a couple of Schedules, as far as I remember. If we were to give effect to that intention we would have to introduce a special Bill. We could not do it in this way, as a lot of details have to be considered, and a lot of interests affected to be consulted, before we could give effect to this legislatively. Accordingly I cannot accept this amendment. But I would be willing to consult with the Minister for Lands and Agriculture as to what can be done to give effect to the intention that has prompted the moving of this amendment.
One has a difficulty in facing this matter in view of the Minister's explanation as to the proposed Bill. I think, but I am not sure, this was promised in the speech of the Governor-General. It certainly was promised a long time ago, and it has not yet seen the light. People from all parts of the country are calling for some Allotments Bill to enable them to carry on the work which they have been carrying on for some time. They are now being deprived of their opportunities for doing so. If one could see any possibility of an Allotments Bill to satisfy the requirements being brought forward and passed within a short time so as to enable work to be begun for next Spring, then I would not press the amendment. In the absence, however, of any assurance of any kind, I feel the need for asking the Dáil to include in this Bill some powers for councils to provide allotments.
Even if there were only twenty people in a small town seeking to use their spare time to grow cabbages and potatoes for the family use, it is beneficial. It would be more beneficial if, in addition, they could be taught and encouraged to grow a greater variety of vegetables. From the economic and the general cultural point of view, it is important that we should encourage this movement. It is because one sees no way other than through this Bill that I have brought forward this new section. As I said, if we could have any assurance that between the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Local Government, perhaps even I should include the Minister for Education, a Bill to provide allotments would be brought in at a very early date, I should be satisfied. Without that assurance, however, I would ask Deputies to support the principle involved in the amendment.
I do not think I can add very much to what I have already said. It is a matter that I would have to take up with the Minister for Agriculture, and I am not sure but that I would have to get the consent of the Executive Council again for the introduction of such a measure. Really it would be a matter for the Minister for Agriculture rather than for me to decide. I think it was he who was to introduce the Bill on the last occasion when it had to be dropped. It is very difficult to say that you will bring in a Bill and have it passed within any particular time. The course of the present Bill is a sufficient example of that. If anybody told me at the time I introduced it that I would not have it through before next Christmas, I would have laughed at him.
Next Christmas is a long time off.
I will agree to take up the matter with the Minister for Agriculture and see what can be done. Deputy Johnson says he has no other way of making the feelings of the people he represents known except by inserting this amendment in the Bill, but I think that the Deputy and his party adopted a very effective way of making known their attitude with regard to another matter. They introduced a Railway Bill which met with considerable approval in the Dáil. I do not know but that they will be able to introduce a measure of this kind also. However, in the absence of that, I will be prepared to take the matter up with the Minister for Lands and Agriculture and see what we can do, but I cannot give any specific guarantee as to having a measure through before a particular time, particularly as I have several other Bills, which are on the tapis for the last six months, which I have not been able to bring forward. For instance, I have an Electoral Bill applying the present electoral law to local government elections. That Bill should be brought in and passed before the next Local Government elections, but I have not a chance of doing it. The result is that we will have to have the Local Government elections on a different system from the recent parliamentary elections.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 19; Níl. 29.
Tá
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John J. Cole.
- John Conlan.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- David Hall.
- Connor Hogan.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Tadhg S. O Donnabháin.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- P. O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean. Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- John Hennigan.
- Seosamh Mac Bhrighde.
- Pádraig Mac Fádain.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Liam Mac Sioghuird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Criostóir O Broin. Seán O Bruadair.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Sémus N.O Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Lámhin.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraig O hOigáin (Gaillimh).
- Seán M. O Suilleabháin.
- Seán Príomhdail.
Amendment declared lost.
I beg to move:—
In sub-section (1), line 23, to delete the words "twelve months" after the word "within," and substitute the word "one month."
According to this section, any member of a council, whether of an urban council or a county council, or any committee, who seeks and is anxious to occupy a position under any public body, is disqualified from doing so. According to the section, he would have to be resigned for 12 months before he would be eligible. I am sure the Minister will agree to accept this amendment. It merely asks him to delete the word "twelve" and to insert the word "one," that is, if a person who had been a member of a public body happened to be appointed to a position under any other local body he should not have to wait 12 months before he is eligible, but, on the contrary, should be eligible in one month. If he resigns, say, to-day from his position as a member of a local body, he should be eligible to be appointed to an office of profit in one month. According to the old Act, not more than six months had to elapse from the time a man resigned until he was eligible for such employment. I think it is a hardship on a certain section of the community that such a period of disqualification should apply.
It is always necessary to find the best brains and intelligence for such positions such as would be required in the employees of committees of management of county boards of health and so on. Members of such committees have experience of local administration on which they have been engaged for years, and they know exactly where savings can be made. If a man who had been a member of such a committee was fortunate enough to secure a position of employment under that committee, I think it would be very wrong to say that a period of 12 months should elapse from the time he resigns his representative position to the time at which he can take up his new employment. I think this amendment is really necessary, but, of course, no argument of mine will convince the Minister if he does not want to accept it. I am really asking the Minister to meet the wishes of people who know the country, and who know how local administration should be carried on. If the Minister accepts this amendment he will be doing a service not only to those who may be seeking positions but to the ratepayers in general, because they are in a position to know their own business.
As this section is drafted, I fully anticipate it will put an end to jobbery. As the Deputy wishes to amend it, if his amendment were accepted, it would reduce jobbery to a fine art. Therefore, notwithstanding the eloquence of the appeal of the Deputy, I must reluctantly refuse it.
May I ask the Minister, in the event of this amendment not being accepted, will the section, as it stands, affect a man who is a public representative at the moment, and who holds the position of old age pension clerk to the local authority of which he is a member himself?
It will not affect him if he resigns at the next election. Sub-section (2) covers that.
Yes, but what I want to get from the Minister is this: will this not operate immediately against this man who holds a position in the authority of which he is himself a member?
Under sub-section (2) he can resign his membership at the next election and that will get him out of the difficulty.
But is it illegal at the moment for him to act as clerk to a committee of the authority of which he is a member?
He will have to resign one position or the other. He cannot continue to remain as clerk and remain a member of the local body at the same time.
Amendment put and negatived.
Amendment 86 (b) not moved.
Question—"That Section 59 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 60.
(1) The Minister may at any time if he thinks fit, order a local inquiry into the performance of its duties by any local authority, and Article 32 of the Schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, shall apply to every such local inquiry.
(2) If and whenever—
(a) the Minister is satisfied, after the holding of such a local inquiry as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section, that the duties of a local authority are not being duly and effectually discharged by such local authority, or
(b) a local authority wilfully neglects to comply with any lawful order, direction, or regulation of the Minister, or
(c) a local authority fails to comply with any judgment, order, or decree of any court in Saorstát Eireann, or
(d) a local authority refuses after due notice to allow its accounts to be audited by an auditor of the Minister,
the Minister may, by order, dissolve such local authority, and either order (under the power hereinafter conferred on him) a new election of members of such local authority or transfer the property and the several powers and duties of such local authority to any body or persons or person he shall think fit.
(3) Whenever the Minister makes an order under this section dissolving a local authority, he may appoint such and so many persons as he shall think fit to perform the duties of such local authority, and may from time to time remove all or any such persons and appoint others in their place, and may fix the tenure of office, duties, and remuneration of all such persons.
(4) The remuneration of all persons appointed under the foregoing sub-section shall be paid out of the revenue of such local authority as part of its expenses.
(5) At any time after a local authority has been dissolved under this section, the Minister may by order cause a new election of members of such local authority to be held, and upon the completion of such new election all the property, powers, and duties of the dissolved local authority shall vest in the body so elected, notwithstanding that the same may have been transferred by the Minister under this section to any other body, persons, or person.
(6) The Minister may from time to time, by order, do all such things and make all such regulations as in his opinion shall be necessary for giving full effect to any order made by him under this section.
(7) Every order made by the Minister or by the Minister for Local Government under Section 12 of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923 (No. 9 of 1923), shall, notwithstanding the repeal of that section by this Act, continue in force as if such order had been made by the Minister under this section, and the provisions of this section shall apply to every such order as if the same had been made under this section.
I beg to move an amendment. Sub-section (1), to delete the word "may," line 36, and substitute therefor the word "shall." This gives the Minister more power than he wants, judging by the wording of the section. The section says the Minister may at any time, if he thinks fit, order a local inquiry into the performance of its duties by any local authority, and Article 32 of the Schedule to the Local Government Order, 1898, shall apply in every such local inquiry. I do not want the Minister to say he may order such an inquiry. I move this amendment to give him complete control over these local authorities, and if a local authority misbehaves in any way, my amendment provides that the Minister shall cause an inquiry. He cannot argue against this amendment. It only places more confidence in the officers of his own Department. It gives him full power and control over local authorities and if they do not act in accordance with his wishes he shall order an inquiry, whether sworn or private as he may think fit, and secure sufficient evidence to thoroughly understand whether that public authority should be allowed to function any longer or not. If he accepts this amendment he will in a short time be able to find very handsome jobs for a large number of commissioners.
I do not know whether there would be unanimity in the voice of Labour on this particular amendment. I am inclined to think there would not, that is to say, in the intention behind it. If the Deputy had taken the precaution to give full effect to his intention we might have been able to have some kind of a debate on this, but I am afraid, as the amendment stands, it really means nothing. The section reads, as amended in the way suggested by the Deputy, "The Minister shall, if he thinks fit." The two terms are contradictory. If the Deputy had left out the words "if he thinks fit" we might have been able to have a discussion on the amendment, but as it stands it means nothing, as I have already stated. I am thankful to the Deputy for the attempt he has made to put more power into my hands.
If the Minister is agreeable. I am satisfied to have the words "if he thinks fit" deleted. I am sure the Minister will not refuse this privilege, which would place him in a position of such great control over these local bodies. So far, the Minister has not accepted any amendment that I put forward on this Bill. I think if he were to accept the amendment he would secure better local administration. At present members of public boards act more or less as tools, because they know that anything they do must be sanctioned by the Department of Local Government. If they persist in carrying out their orders without sanction, then the Minister may cause an inquiry to be held and he has the power to dissolve them.
Amendment put and negatived.
On behalf of Deputy O'Connell, I beg to move amendment 87. I think it would be well if amendments 87 and 88 were taken together, as one is consequential on the other.
The Deputy can move the two amendments now.
Amendment 87 reads:—
"In sub-section (5), page 3, line 28, to delete the words ‘at any time' and substitute therefor the words ‘not later than twelve months.'"
Amendment 88 reads:—
"In sub-section (5), line 4, to delete the word ‘may' and substitute therefore the word ‘shall.'"
If the sub-section were altered, as suggested in these amendments, it would read: "not later than 12 months after the local authority has been dissolved under this section the Minister shall, by order, cause a new election of members to be held etc." The sub-section, as it stands, leaves it entirely optional with the Minister whether he shall order a local election or not. Once the authority is dissolved it may remain dissolved for all time under this section. We desire to limit the period of non-existence to 12 months, and that after dissolution it shall be incumbent on the Minister to order a new election within a period of 12 months. I think that unless it is the intention of the Minister permanently to dissolve a local authority the amendment is reasonable and should appeal to the Dáil. It merely seeks to ensure that an election shall be held for a local authority within 12 months after it has been dissolved. Perhaps the Minister is content to accept the amendment.
I am sorry I cannot fall in with Deputy Johnson's wishes on this point. This section is a readaptation of Section 12 of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act in a permanent form and is a very necessary section. It has been found to work very well in the past. It is not by any means a penal section. Situations often arise owing to no fault of the councils in question. Their accounts get into a very bad way, and their administration becomes involved and it becomes extremely difficult to put things on a proper administrative footing.
The only remedy for such a situation is to appoint a whole-time officer with expert knowledge and training, not only expert knowledge and training of local authorities in the country, but with a knowledge of the working of local government in other countries, that is to say, a man who is in every way capable and efficient of conducting the affairs of local bodies. It is not with any particular pleasure that I have resorted to the appointment of such officers. It is only when I find that a situation has arisen which is of such a nature that, if drastic measures of this kind are not adopted, the ratepayers are going to lose very heavily, or that local administration is likely to break down or is on the point of breaking down, that I take this action. When I do resort to this step and appoint a commissioner, it is absolutely necessary that he should be given a free hand for a certain length of time. When a local authority gets into a bad mess, a local authority of the importance, say, of the Dublin or Cork Corporations, or a large county council, you cannot possibly remedy all the evils that have arisen perhaps over a course of ten or twelve years in the short space of 12 months.
That is altogether too small a minimum to insist upon for this purpose. It is very difficult to say what length of time would be necessary to bring about all the reforms that are necessary when a local authority gets into a really bad economic situation. Accorddingly, I will have to resist this amendment. The only effect of it would be, first, that a commissioner might be carrying out his duty effectively and have gone a long way to put a local authority on the straight path again when all his efforts might be impaired by putting him out before he had his work thoroughly cleaned up, and instead of allowing him to create a situation that would enable the newly-elected body to carry on with efficiency and success, it would leave a situation which would entail on me the necessity of appointing another commissioner to complete the work that the first commissioner was not given time to perform completely.
I take it from the Minister's answer that he is not prepared to put a limit on the period which a local authority shall be administered by a commissioner, so that when we are passing this section the power will be handed over to the Minister absolutely to say whether a local body shall be administered by a commissioner. We are empowering the Minister to destroy the whole system of government by elected bodies without limit of time. That is a revolutionary act. It is completely altering the whole system under which local administration has been conducted.
Yes. It is in operation under the law that we have taken over, but we are asked now to confirm a power which ought never have been given. I have no objection to the principle that, where a local authority is utterly incompetent or corrupt, the Minister should have power to dissolve that local authority, but I do not think that he should have power to maintain that state of dissolution for ever as he has under this section. I think that the system of government by elected bodies, once we adopted it in this Bill, as we are, should be insured, and that if there is to be a dissolution of one body for its corruption then we should elect another. If we are going to throw upon localities—this is the essence of my objection to this Bill right through—responsibility for their own administration, you have got to make them responsible and make them feel that some responsibility lies upon them for selecting competent persons, and, if they make a mistake the first time, the Minister has power to dissolve that authority, and impose upon the local electorate a duty of electing another authority, but let it at all times be thrown upon the locality.
Once upon a time I thought that that was a principle generally accepted by those who call themselves democrats and nationalists. I learned, however, that that is only a temporary conviction in special circumstances, but I am of a conservative temperament and am inclined to carry out a principle I hold, so far as it is possible within reason, and not to change with every new circumstance. In this case I ask the Dáil to agree that there should be a limit to the period in which an elected body should be non-operative, that there should be always, at least within a period of twelve months, an opportunity given to the local electorate to elect a new authority. The Minister says that he has power at the present time to dissolve the local authority, to put in a commissioner, and keep him there as long as he likes. I know he has that power and that he has availed of it to a considerable extent. I am sorry to learn that from him by inference that he proposes to keep localities deprived of those local authorities. If there is to be a system of local responsibility for local administration through elected persons, whatever may be their power, whether it is to be enlarged or limited, and if there is to be an elected body we should ensure that it shall not be suspended for more than twelve months and give the electorate a chance to amend its procedure, and to change its representatives. I ask the Dáil to disagree with the Minister's view that he should have this absolute power, and to lay down in a statute that his power to keep a local authority in suspense should not last longer than twelve months.
The procedure we are adopting at present is triennial elections. If, at the end of a year and a half, one of these elected bodies did something which, in the opinion of the Minister would necessitate its abolition, after twelve months you come within six months of a new election, and am I to understand that you are to have a special election for this particular body with a triennial election following in six months?
I imagine that the amendment is fairly clear. It means that if the Minister deems it necessary to suspend a local authority at any time a new election shall be held for that local authority within twelve months of its suspension.
No matter when the other elections are coming on?
I suggest to the Minister to accept the amendment and to reconsider it between now and the Report Stage, and to add to the clause as it stands a paragraph to the effect that he could reserve the right of postponing such election if circumstances warranted, and so make some fixture as to the holding of an election. As it stands, it is rather general.
Perhaps it would satisfy Deputy Gorey if I said I am concerned with the principle rather than the dates. If the Minister said two years, or three years, it would go far to meet my point of principle, but I wish to insist that there should be a limit as to the time during which the Minister's power shall be exercisable.
I do not know if the Deputy will be satisfied with five years.
The Minister seems to be inclined to accept this amendment with an extension of the period. I would suggest that the period of three years might be put in, and that would cover the whole period for which a council will be elected. One must realise the reasonableness of having some limit, and, as far as I am concerned, I view with some apprehension the trend of things that would give a Minister autocratic or unlimited power in connection with any of these matters that affect the country as a whole. Assuming he has got unlimited power, it may be said that the Dáil is always here to rectify or criticise the action of the Minister, but one can quite well see that a situation might arise in which this Dáil, as far as the opposition is concerned, would be powerless, and grave injustice, or what would appear to the opposition to be a grave injustice, might take place. In view of the fact that the Minister seems to be willing to accept the principle that there should be a limitation of the time, I suggest that the amendment should be altered to read three years instead of one year. If Deputy Johnson will accept that, I would certainly support him.
I understood the Minister to say that he will be prepared to accept a period of five years. But the effect of that would be that the people of a locality would be without representatives on a local authority for five years and have in their stead a commissioner. Surely the Minister is aware that if local bodies are dissolved simply because they are not carrying out the duties of their office, if an election is held within 12 months of the dissolution of that body people are not going to vote these same representatives back to office. A new body altogether will be elected to carry out the business of that body in a proper manner. I am of opinion that the dissolution of councils, and the putting in of commissioners in their places, is not in accordance with the wish of the people. Why should you keep these commissioners there for five years against the will of the people? I think it is only right that people should be allowed to elect their representatives. Twelve months after the dissolution of a body is long enough for any commissioner to act, and I think he ought to be able to make enough in that time to keep him for the rest of his life.
I think a period of three years would be quite long enough in which to get a council reformed. I think if they cannot make reforms in that time they will never make reforms, or there is not much hope for them doing so.
I think, on the whole. I would be willing to accept the period of three years, but I am a little doubtful about it. Take the position in Dublin, with a Commission inquiring into the whole situation regarding Dublin. It may take a long time to bring in a report, as it has wide terms of reference, and then that report will have to be considered and legislation based on it. There may be a difficulty about bringing in such legislation and having it passed through the Dáil in time to have an election within three years of the date of dissolution, but on the whole, I think we may chance that.
Perhaps the Minister will include Section 60 among those that do not apply to the city and county of Dublin?
I am afraid not. If Deputy Johnson is willing to accept three years, I would be willing to concede that.
The principle is accepted. I think three years too long, but as I see no chance, from such expressions as have been uttered, of the Dáil agreeing to twelve months, I will, with reluctance, with the leave of the Dáil, alter the amendment to read "not later than three years," reserving the right to persuade people in another place to press for the twelve months. The amendment would read:—
"In sub-section (5), line 3, page 28, to delete the words ‘at any time' and substitute therefor the words ‘not later than three years.'"
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 88 also agreed to.
I move to report progress.
