LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL. - COMMITTEE STAGE (RESUMED).
The Dáil resumed the Committee Stage of the Local Government Bill, 1924 (Section 60).
I beg to move Amendment 89:
Before sub-section (7) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(7) Every order dissolving a local authority made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and shall not have any effect unless and until it has been approved by resolution of each House."
The dissolution of a local authority is not a mere matter of routine departmental administration, about which the Minister might expect not to make any special report to the Oireachtas. It is a very drastic, almost a revolutionary measure, particularly when applied on a large scale. The drastic nature of the measure was recognised by the present Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe) when he was Minister for Local Government, when the power to dissolve was taken in the Local Government Temporary Provisions Act, 1923. In asking leave to introduce that Bill the Minister said:—
"It is not a power that will be lightly or readily used. It is a power which from the use of it the central authority or Minister responsible will naturally shrink. He is bound to incur an enormous amount of criticism on account of the particular type of administration carried on by his appointees. The small extent to which it has been used in respect of boards of guardians in the past indicates the degree of reluctance with which it will be used. It is much easier for the central authority to criticise the administration of a local body and check it and refuse sanction to this or that which it regards as illegal rather than to take up the burden of administration and face all the local criticism which will arise. It is a power which is essentially a drastic power, but it exercises its own checks because of the difficulties it imposes and because of the criticism which arises in respect of any act of administration. Consequently, though a drastic power, it is a power which nobody will fear will be used unduly or very frequently."
The Minister then used as an argument, to secure sanction from the Dáil, that his sole reason in asking this power was that some local authorities had refused to collect rates, that members of local authorities were intimidated from attending or carrying out their duties, and that it was necessary to secure this power to appoint Commissioners. We know that the power given and included under the Act of 1923 has been used in many cases of a very different kind from what the Minister stated when he introduced the Bill. No less than 17 local authorities have been dissolved. Why have they been dissolved?
Because they deserved it.
That may be my friend, Deputy Connor Hogan's, point of view, but the general opinion is that it was because some of them had men on them who admittedly were appointed or elected in 1918, not because of their qualifications for administration, and not because they had any ability, but simply because they belonged to one political organisation and were elected solely to break the power of the British Government in Ireland. That was their qualification, and subsequently they did not approve of certain work of the Government of the Free State, and the Government of the Free State dissolved these public boards because they disagreed with their policy and because they had the idea that these men would use the same power to defeat the Irish Government as they used to defeat the British Government in Ireland.
Many boards, according to the inquiries that have been made, have been dissolved on account of maladministration. Some of them have been dissolved because they appointed Republican Lord Mayors, others because they passed resolutions protesting against certain actions of the Irish Government. For that reason, and no other, I think many of them have been dissolved by the Government. They thought it better to dissolve these bodies and appoint commissioners instead, that would carry out the orders of the Government.
If that is true, and if there is nothing to hide, then, in my opinion, it would be necessary after inquring into the conduct of the boards to place the report upon the Table, and to leave it there for members of both Houses to see whether the Government was justified in dissolving these boards or not. If the Government say they dissolved them for mismanagement, then they have a clear case, and I am sure no Deputy in this House is going to get up and approve of the action of any council or corporation that mismanaged its affairs or the affairs of the rate-payers. Deputy Connor Hogan, of course, is out, if he had his way, to appoint all commissioners. Probably commissioners are necessary in some cases, but if they are necessary and the Government have a good case, surely they need not be afraid to bring their case here for approval of the Dáil. These commissioners are men who are authorised by the Free State Government to carry out all their orders. Under the present Bill, if a local body refuses to carry out an Order, even to administer the Vaccination Act, they are liable to be dissolved and commissioners put in their places. If there is mal-administration or anything else of that kind, no Deputy in this House would get up to support any body or corporation guilty of it. Therefore, I have great pleasure in moving this amendment and would ask the Minister to adopt it.
I do not think the facts support the Deputy in his statement that political motives have influenced me in my action in dissolving boards throughout the country during my administration. I think anyone who has gone critically into the cases that I have dealt with will see that I have dealt with them in a very impartial way. I have dissolved boards for various reasons, sometimes because of extravagance, in some cases because of bribery and corruption, and in some cases because boards refused to appoint existing officers and insisted on appointing new officers, thus saddling the ratepayers with the cost of the salaries of the new and inefficient officials, and at the same time with the cost of the pension of the old and efficient servant. I have dissolved local boards for very many reasons, and I have done so irrespective of whether the members of these bodies were supporters of the Government or not. At the present time, on the benches behind me, are two distinguished representatives of bodies that I found it necessary to abolish.
It certainly caused me pain to have to deprive the country of the services of such distinguished representatives, and if I were to look at the matter from a Party motive I would have stayed my hand in these particular cases, the case of the Dublin Corporation and that of the Cork Corporation. I have also dissolved a board of health, the chairman of which was a prominent supporter of our Party and was at one time a member of this Dáil. On the whole, I have acted quite impartially in the matter and have administered my Department solely on non-political lines.
This amendment is altogether unnecessary. The powers that I am taking under this section are not legislative, they are purely administrative. If they were legislative or quasi-legislative, there would be justification for insisting that the Orders should be Tabled in both Houses of the Oireachtas, but in cases that are purely administrative there is no reason or justification for doing so. My Department is continually open to criticism. If any Deputy has reason to find fault with, or to disapprove of, my conduct in dissolving a board he can raise a discussion on the matter here in the Dáil, while he has also got ample opportunities of concentrating public opinion on my delinquencies, if he regards them as such, in matters of this kind.
On a point of personal explanation, I desire to make it perfectly clear that I did not, nor was it my intention to, make anything in the nature of a personal attack on any officer in the Department of Local Government. I can assure the Minister— and in this I am sure many Deputies will agree with me—that the most courteous officials we meet in any Department of the Government are the officials attached to the Local Government Department. I can say that from personal experience. I have always found the officials in the Local Government Department most courteous and obliging and always ready to assist. I desire to remove any impression that may have been created that I was making a personal attack on the officials in the Minister's Department. That was not my intention, and I am anxious that such an impression, should it have been created in the minds of anyone, would be removed at once. It was not the officials I was attacking, but the policy of the Government, and, of course, in that, the Minister is only carrying out the Government's orders. In conclusion, I may say that I have not anything personal against the Minister at all.
I am thankful for the compliment that the Deputy has paid to my Department. I am not dealing with this in a personal way, but I am just reminding the Deputy that he can deal with the attitude, conduct and policy of my Department by raising the matter in the Dáil, and that it is not necessary to have these Orders Tabled in both Houses of the Oireachtas. When it comes to the question of dissolving a public body, it is generally necessary for me to act quickly. That would be specially so if I had to deal with a very bad type of local authority. because it can easily be understood that such a body could create difficulties if it were allowed to remain in office for two or three weeks while the matter was being discussed in the Dáil and Seanad. It could create so many difficulties and throw so many monkey wrenches into the administration of the machinery of a local authority that it would be practically impossible, when I did appoint a commissioner, to clean up the mess in a reasonable time. It is necessary, when I do take power to dissolve these authorities—the power is only taken in cases that are considered very serious—to act promptly, and for that reason I could not agree to have my hands tied up in this particular way.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 44.
Tá
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- David Hall.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ni Choileáin Bean Uí
- Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- John Hannigan.
- William Hewat.
- Connor Hogan.
- Seosamh Mac Bhrighde.
- Donchadh Mac Con Uladh.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Risteárd Mac Líam.
- Líam Mac Sioghaird.
- Líam Mag Aonghusa.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- John T. Nolan.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Séan O Bruadair.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Tadhg S. O Donnabháin.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Donchadh S. O Guaire.
- Aindriú O Laimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Seán Priomhdhail.
- Liam Thrift.
- Nicholas Wall.
Amendment declared lost.
I beg to move the amendment which stands in the name of Deputy Davin:—To delete sub-section (7). There is not much hope of this amendment being accepted, but the object is to secure some indication from the Minister as to how long the suspension of about seventeen local authorities is likely to last. I would like the Minister to give that information now.
The object of sub-section (7) is to enforce the Orders issued under a previous Act, which is a temporary one, and the section, of which this is a re-enactment, is being repealed by this sub-section, namely, Section 12. This sub-section is necessary in order to get these Orders enforced. The Deputy has put a question which is extremely difficult to answer. There have been several local authorities dissolved, and I think the Deputy mentioned that there were seventeen dissolved altogether. Each local authority was dissolved under a different set of circumstances. It would probably be possible to hold elections for some of them when the next general election for local authorities takes place. In other cases, such as that of the Dublin Corporation, it would be impossible to have them reinstated until I get a report from the Dublin Commission which is now considering that matter.
That report will also have a bearing on the situation in Cork. I could not undertake to reinstate the council in Cork until the report of the Dublin inquiry has been received. Each case will have to be considered on its merits. Where a council has got into difficulties the prime consideration is to see that it has been put straight, and put into such a condition that when a new council is elected they will be able to go ahead with a clean sheet and will not have any insuperable difficulties to contend with. If I were to allow new bodies to be elected before the commissioners completed their job, it would probably mean that I would only have to dissolve such a body again, and again appoint a commissioner to finish the job. It would be impossible for me to state how long I will allow commissioners to remain in each particular case. I could not lay down any particular rule which would govern all these cases.
Could the Minister give us any indication as regards boards of health which have been dissolved? I think his reference have regard to bodies that would be elected in the ordinary way in January or February, when the elections will be held.
The same argument holds good with regard to boards of health as to the other bodies. I am very anxious that the local representatives should be in control of these authorities, but if commissioners have been appointed, and if they have difficulties to get over which I consider a local council could not get over, it would be necessary for me to leave them in office, but I would prefer, where possible, to allow the councils and boards of health to be elected at the next general election, as a general line of policy.
In the event of that not being feasible, would the Minister consider the advisability, in cases where commissioners have been appointed in the place of boards of health, of having advisory committees set up consisting of people in touch with the recipients of home help, as you cannot expect one man to attend to all these matters?
We have given that matter a good deal of attention, and proposals have been put up in several specific cases, but we have not thought it desirable to adopt them. Later, if the situation justifies it, we will consider the matter.
Would the Minister consider it advisable to have an advisory committee to assist the commissioner in regard to the administration of home help? The commissioner has only an outside knowledge of the conditions that exist in these areas, with the result that many of the unfortunate destitute poor are suffering owing to the fact that they have not got anyone to make representations on their behalf to the commissioner who is the supreme authority for the time being. I think it would be advisable if the Minister would think out some scheme whereby there would be advisory committees set up to advise and assist the commissioners in the different localities where such commissioners are functioning.
The constitution of the committee would, I believe, be a very difficult matter. It is very hard to pick out people who should get representation on such a committee, and the commissioner is in a much better position to attend to such matters than the local council, which is only a part-time body, and cannot devote its whole time-to the business. The commissioner is there to receive representations from all classes, and is ready to give them a sympathetic and disinterested hearing. The case was made on another section by Deputy Morrissey that home help in my own particular country is being administered on political lines. If you have a commissioner administering home help, there is no danger that that will occur. From every point of view, I think the administration of home help would be better carried out by a commissioner than by local men, who would have local and, perhaps, political interests to bias their opinions.
May I say that is a most extraordinary argument. It would lead anybody to believe that it was the Minister's intention to have commissioners operating for evermore. He seems to have a bad opinion of the representatives who will be elected at the next election. If the Minister suggests that the commissioner is available at all times to people who have representations to make that they are entitled to home help, I think that is a big order so far as the commissioner is concerned. I do not think it would be a difficult matter for him to find an advisory committee. There are various voluntary committees set up in different areas for the purpose of helping the poor, and I do not think anybody would object to a commissioner taking members for an advisory committee from bodies such as those. I think the Minister should seriously consider this whole matter, because it is too much to ask that one person in each county health area would be in a position to deal effectively with the representations that would be made to him on behalf of the deserving poor.
Under this section, or under the law as it stands, there is nothing to prevent the commissioner, if he so desires, from setting up such a committee. We are altogether in favour of his receiving advice in every possible direction from which he thinks he can get suitable advice. I do not wish to make it mandatory on him to set up such a committee, but he has power to do so at present.
Would the Minister consider it advisable to have the chairmen of each rural council acting on an advisory committee? I do not think that would cause much trouble. A man representing each district would be in touch with the district, and could give advice to the commissioner administering the affairs of what was known as the board of health. I do not think that there could be much objection to that.
I understand that the Minister has stated that I said here some days ago that home help in Tipperary was administered on political lines. I wish to say that I made no such statement whatsoever, but I said that when the superintendent of home help, or other officers, were being appointed by the county board of health, it was probably because of their political opinions, which is a different matter.
It was I who made that statement referred to by the Minister, and I am in a position to prove it. I know that in certain areas in Tipperary people of a certain political belief were receiving better attention from the relieving officers than others. Certain parties make representation to the relieving officer in a certain area and they get better attention than people of another political party. The commissioner is just as open to corruption as any other person.
I would like to know if any member of the political party the Minister represents is ever in any need of home assistance?
Judging by the correspondence I get, I am afraid they are.
Would the Minister consider the advisability of appointing chairmen of rural district councils as members of the committee?
They will cease to exist after this Bill becomes law.
They are dead but not buried.
Amendment put and declared lost.
The question is: That Section 60, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
In this connection, of course the Minister refused to accept the amendment put forward by Deputy Everett, but I think he ought not to be so hasty as far as the abolition of councils is concerned. I wonder would he consider the advisability of setting up some sort of arbitration board of members of the Dáil to review the evidence submitted at an inquiry? Something of that kind might be desirable, for I think the Minister has acted rather hastily in abolishing certain councils.
I do not think that this is in order. We have already decided this matter, but I think Deputy Corish will realise that it would be really taking responsibility out of my Department's hands and putting responsibility on the Dáil, which would be, perhaps, unfair to the Dáil.
I understand all about that, but I do not see where I am out of order. We are discussing a section which is giving the Minister certain powers.
But we debated that particular point.
Yes, but we are debating the whole section now.
Question put, and agreed to.
SECTION 61.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may by order add any urban district not being a borough to a county health district adjoining and in the same county as such urban district, and from and after the date on which such order comes into operation, such urban district shall be part of such county health district as aforesaid.
(2) Where any urban district is, by an order made under this section, added to a county health district, such urban district shall be deemed to be a town in which the provisions of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, have been adopted in whole, and until the next election of commissioners of towns, the council of such urban district shall be the board of commissioners of such town.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may by order dissolve the board of commissioners of any town and transfer the powers, duties, property, and liabilities of such board to the board of health of the county health district of which such town is a part.
(4) No order shall be made by the Minister under this section adding an urban district to a county health district or dissolving a board of commissioners of a town unless either—
(a) the council of such urban district or the board of commissioners of such town as the case may be applies to the Minister to make such order, or
(b) the Minister is satisfied, after the holding of a local inquiry into the performance of the duties of such council or board, as the case may be, that such duties are not being duly and effectually performed.
(5) Any order made under this section shall contain such provisions as may seem necessary or expedient for adapting the provisions relating to public works contained in any enactment, and for making adjustments of property, rights, and liabilities.
(6) Any order made under this section in respect of an urban district may declare the whole or any part or parts of the indebtedness of such urban district to be payable by the county health district and the payment thereof to be either general expenses or special expenses of the county health district, and in the latter case may declare that such payment shall be a separate charge on the area upon which such expenses would have been charged if such order had not been made, or on such portion of the county health district including that area as the Minister shall think fit.
I move:—
In sub-section (4) to delete paragraph (b), lines 47 to 50, and consequently in lines 43, 44, and 46 to delete "either,""(a)" and "or."
After all that has been said, I do not know that there is much use in moving this amendment. It is an attempt to save some remnant of representation from the tomahawk of the Minister. He has quite enough scalps on his belt at present without rushing in on the urban councils and endeavouring to destroy them, but he evidently seems determined to do it. It will be noted that this is something that should receive very serious consideration before he is allowed to wield his tomahawk in that direction. It is that the expenses that would have been charged if such an order had been made remain, notwithstanding the fact that he seeks to merge such councils into other boards, to degrade the urban councils to the position of town commissioners. If that is what the Minister proposes to do with popular representation, it reduces popular representation to a farce.
I can quite understand that the Minister could produce arguments to show that bodies previously functioning were not elected, but were selected, but this Bill seeks to deal with future representation, and it is to be hoped that on or some time after the 15th January the bodies that will be in power and functioning will be properly elected bodies and that they will be capable of exercising all the functions of local government. For some years the Minister himself has been very assiduously propagating the idea that we were capable of governing, and yet one of the first acts of the Government is to say that we are not able to manage a town, to put power into the Minister's hands to take away the right of people who seek to put in certain representatives and to embody that power in the Minister. I think that is a very serious infringement of popular representation, and I think that the Minister would be well advised to reconsider this before he would ask that it should become part and parcel of the Bill.
The Deputy accuses me of wielding a tomahawk and of having a lot of scalps dangling from my belt, but in this particular case I have quite a number of willing victims, strange as it may appear. There are quite a number of small towns that are not business propositions, and they find it very difficult to carry on. In practice, small sanitary authorities are not a success, and now under the provisions of the Bill the tendency will be to a much greater extent that these small authorities should be amalgamated with the county boards of health. Some of the most flourishing towns at present are towns that are disurbanised, or were never urbanised. In my own county there is Roscrea, which is very progressive, and which is not an urban authority at all. The overhead charges in these small towns often prevent them from progressing, and they are very often anxious to become disurbanised.
Then take the cases of Granard and Westport, for example, where the people wanted to be disurbanised on several occasions, but it is a very difficult process; we have to get the authority of the Parliament, but that takes too long; it means introducing legislation, and for that reason a number of these small bodies which are most anxious to be relieved of the responsibility of administering their own affairs cannot be relieved. In some cases there are urban areas of that kind which cannot even elect a council, and they are not in a position to ask me to disurbanise them, even though they might be anxious to do so. For that reason it is necessary to retain this particular section, and it is by no means a repressive or an autocratic section. It is really helpful, and such large powers are given for the appointment of committees that I think there will be a general tendency on the part of a number of these towns to seek disurbanisation.
Am I to understand from the Minister that except in some few cases where it has not been found impossible to elect a local council, he is prepared to limit his powers in this direction, that he is prepared to wait until such council applies to the Minister to make such an order? The whole of his argument, almost would lead the House to assume that all the Minister was seeking was power to respond to the request of the council to be deurbanised. If that is all, I wonder why the Minister did not say that he accepts the amendment because that is what the amendment seeks to ensure. The amendment proposes to deprive the Minister of power to abolish a council or to degrade an urban council into town commissioners at his option, but so far as the amendment is concerned, it allows the Minister to respond to a request from an urban council or a board of commissioners that such council or commissioners should be abolished.
Now, if the latter is the Minister's desire, he should accept the amendment. But, apparently, he desires something more; he desires to have power to dissolve an urban council, in the same way as he has dissolved other councils, for other reasons than corruption or incompetence. He wants power to dissolve a council when he is satisfied after holding a local inquiry, that the duties of the council are not being duly and effectually performed. Already he has powers under the last section to dissolve a local authority where he is satisfied, after holding certain inquiries, that its duties are not being discharged. He wants now to dissolve the urban council, to merge it in the county health district, and to degrade an urban council to the position of town commissioners. I submit that that is simply adding to the powers of the Minister to revolutionise the whole system of local government at his within and fancy, and that we should not give the Minister those powers. So far as the amendment goes, it would leave the Minister power to make an order of the kind desired at the request of such a council, but it would deprive him of the power to merge an urban council into a county district at his wish, leaving him still power to dissolve a council, under Section 60. This whole section is a further indication, added to the many in the Bill, that the Minister wants to centralise authority, and though he says that he is going to satisfy the desires expressed by different councils, I suggest that minorities of these councils, possibly even majorities, in the present circumstances are being stimulated by his activities in asking that they should be dissolved and that they should not be encouraged in their wrong doing but should be encouraged in their desire to be relieved of responsibility. The whole tendency of the Bill is bad in that respect; this is one of the worst of the sections, and I hope the Dáil will agree to the amendment at least.
I do not think that Deputy Johnson can fairly read into this section any autocratic intentions on my part. Under the previous section I have power to appoint commissioners for such towns, and that would be, presumably, the most autocratic thing I could do. As things stand at present if it were necessary to abolish an urban council, even though the urban council may be anxious to be dissolved, or the town itself may be anxious to be disurbanised, but through apathy, or some other reason, they do not make such a recommendation to me, or if a very bad council happens to be in control and happens to be driving the council towards bankruptcy, the only way I have of interfering at present is to appoint a commissioner.
A new election will not get over the difficulty if the finances of the town are in a hopeless situation, as they generally are after a long run by a bad council, and it is a much less autocratic thing to allow this body to be absorbed in a larger area. I think on these grounds alone, that Deputy Johnson should allow me this alternative instead of having to appoint a commissioner in the few cases. I do not believe that there are or will be many cases of towns which are not willing to be disurbanised and which have allowed their affairs to get into such a state that it is necessary for me to step in. I do not think it is good from the point of view of Deputy Johnson's own policy to appoint a commissioner——
Am I to understand that the Minister is only seeking powers which would enable him to tack on an urban area to the county health area temporarily and not permanently?
In practice it would be only temporary because that area always has power to appeal again to be urbanised. After being disurbanised, at any time they have power to get urbanised again on the request of a certain proportion of the electors. I am not sure of the exact proportion.
I do not like the Minister to say disurbanised and re-urbanised. If he had something to make clear that it was only a temporary expedient because of the fact that in his opinion they had not done the right thing in a particular area, and that it would be merely tacked on to the county health area until such time as there would be an election, or that the finances could be made right again, that would be an entirely different matter, but there is nothing to show that that is the Minister's intention in this section.
It is quite likely that once an urban area became disurbanised there would be no desire in that town to be urbanised again. They have power any time they want to become urbanised again, once the situation is cleared up and they feel that they can make a success of the urban council to appeal. A certain proportion of the electors can appeal to be urbanised again.
Are there powers to enable the Minister to urbanise them, without coming to Parliament?
The Minister has said nothing about councils who have expressed no desire to be disurbanised. He has only referred to the little towns which have no councils which request to be merged in the county area. He has not given any sufficient reason, to my mind, as to why the councils which do not demand that should have their privileges taken from them, and then who is to see they get back their positions as urban areas? What is everybody's duty is nobody's duty, and once a council comes to lose its status it is very hard to restore these privileges.
I think, when it is of so little account to the community in general that their town should become urbanised, that they have no interest one way or another, it is pretty good evidence that they do not wish to be urbanised. If they wish to be urbanised again they have only to appeal to the Minister—a certain proportion of the electors.
I could not state that definitely at the moment.
In view of the confusion that evidently exists both in the Minister's mind and in our minds, I think it would be an advisable thing if the Minister were to give an undertaking to re-draft this section. I think he should be satisfied to have power to tack on an urban area temporarily to a county health area in the event of any corruption being proved against that body or in the case of bad finances or something of that kind. I think he should be satisfied with that and that he should not disurbanise an area because of some temporary thing that arose there.
I am afraid that I for one could not agree with Deputy Corish about withdrawing opposition if the Minister is prepared to re-draft this section, because I am against the whole principle of the thing. To my mind the further we get on this Bill the more it becomes clear what are the intentions of the Minister, and I do not think there could be any doubt in anybody's mind that his intentions are to abolish all local representation. I repeat, to abolish all local representation. The Minister may shake his head but I can tell the Minister that not only is that the belief of a number of Deputies, but it is the belief of a big section of the people in the country.
And the desire of a big section more.
Exactly. And the desire of another fairly large section. I, of course, am not a bit surprised that the Minister has not any confidence in the councils of the country at the moment, considering that the Farmers' Party have no confidence in them —absolutely none. The Farmers' Party have much more confidence in a commissioner than even the members of their own Party, who man the councils.
A DEPUTY
I would ask the Deputy to point out one county council in the Free State on which there is not a majority of farmers. I think it is perfectly clear that it is the Minister's intention to try to get into his own hands as much power as he possibly can, and it is also clear that the Minister has a sort of pet idea of his own of having local administration carried on something on the same lines as it is carried on in America, and that it might be a very nice thing to have a county run by three or four gentlemen paid very large salaries.
Of course, that would put an end to corruption from the Minister's point of view, but from my point of view it would make corruption much more easy. It is easier to corrupt one or two individuals than to corrupt 20 or 30 individuals. As far as I am concerned. I do not care whether the Minister is satisfied to alter the section as suggested by Deputy Corish. I am against the section, because I think the principle is a bad one.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 37.
Tá
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Aodh O Culacháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg P.O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
Níl
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Conlan.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ni Choileáin Bean Uí
- Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- M. Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- D. Mac Conn Uladh.
- Seosamh Mac Bhrighde.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Ml. K. Noonan.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Donnell.
- Peadar S. O'Dubhghaill.
- Eamon S. O Dúgháin.
- Donchadh S. O Guaire.
- Aindriú O Láimhin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Seán Priomhdhail.
- Liam Thrift.
- Nicholas Wall.
Amendment declared lost.
I move to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(7) Any order made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and shall not come into effect unless and until it has been approved by resolution of each such House.
It is hardly necessary for me to say much on the matter, because it has been discussed on other amendments. I move this amendment because there is a general feeling down the country that the Government want to centralise all local authority in the Dáil. It is not too much to ask the Minister to have some consideration for amendments put forward here by Deputies on the Labour benches. Amendment after amendment has been put forward in this connection and they have been all overlooked as if the Labour Party has no say at all, or as if what they do say is untrue. It would seem as if we had a Government in this country who have no faith in the Labour Party.
The substance of this amendment was debated before, and I do not think it is necessary to go into the merits now. The arguments that held good previously will hold good now. I do not think the Deputy has ground for complaint, as to the treatment of amendments from his Benches. A good many more amendments have been accepted from his Party than from any other Party in the House.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed:—That Section 61 stand part of the Bill.
A section which proposed to abolish rural councils was opposed on these Benches and by very large numbers of people in the country. Notwithstanding our opposition, that proposal was accepted by the House. We then said that that was only part of the general movement inaugurated in this Bill towards centralisation of authority and deprivation of local bodies of their power and responsibility. It is another step in that centralising process. Having got the sanction of the House to the abolition of rural district councils, it is now sought to give the Minister power to abolish urban district councils and to merge them in the county authority so that we shall have, if the Minister uses the powers which this section gives him, as the local administration: borough councils, county councils and the Minister, the county councils having devolved their authority on boards of health, who, in turn, will devolve their functions upon local nominated bodies.
The urban elected bodies are to be abolished at the will of the Minister— not only abolished, but their powers are to be merged in the county council. That, I say, is giving the Minister powers which we ought not to give him. It is simply a step towards the abolition of local government by elected bodies. I shall mark my protest against this tendency by asking the House to vote against the section.
I would like if Deputy Johnson would read sub-section 4 (a). (Sub-section quoted.)
I will not. You have it in the sub-section that I quoted that the local authority—the urban council in this case—must apply to the Minister for the power to dissolve.
Deputy Wilson, I think, a moment ago, voted against an amendment which would give him what he now pretends he is asking for. He voted against an amendment which would give the Minister power to merge the urban council in the county council at the request of the urban council. Deputy Wilson voted against that, and now uses that as an argument against my motion.
I wish to protest against that statement of Deputy Johnson's. There is no intention in the Bill to do anything of the kind that Deputy Johnson suggests. There is no intention to abolish these urban councils wholesale. It is only a power, in case an urban council gets into financial difficulties or otherwise, and it enables us to get them out of that difficulty and to come to their rescue in a great many cases in which they are willing to welcome assistance. I am subject to public opinion while holding office here. I am subject to the criticism of this Dáil. I may not be very much of a politician, but I have political horsesense enough to know that if I go riding rough-shod over the urban authorities in the country there is not much prospect of my remaining in the Dáil very long. I think Deputy Johnson ought give me credit for having that much sense.
The Minister seems to misapprehend his own and my position in this matter. When we have given him power to do these things, we are responsible if he exercises that power. We are responsible to the extent that we have assisted in giving him the power which we think ought not be given to him, and I object to giving a Minister these powers to exercise them at his discretion, powers which, if exercised, will mean the abolition of local responsibility for local government. Now, it may be a good thing to do that. It may be a bad thing, but whether it is good or bad to do it, it certainly is bad to hand over that power to a Minister. We can take the line that some people would like to do away with general administration throughout the country over all local affairs and hand it over to a commissioner whom we shall call a Minister, as Deputy Hogan and his colleagues, or some of them, would like to have in the case of a local authority. We can call the Minister a commissioner for local government, and hand to him those powers. That may be quite defensible. I have no doubt that the Minister could make a case which would convince possibly the majority of the Deputies, if they had a meeting beforehand and decided to support the Minister. But we have not yet been told that that is the intention of the Minister.
We are being told time and again, that the Minister does not intend to do these things. But he asks us to give him the power to do them, and that is what I protest against. I protest against the Minister being given powers to administer local affairs in the country in the way he wishes. That, right through this Bill, is what we are being asked to do. This is one of them, to hand over to him powers to merge urban districts in the county district. He can hold an inquiry, and if he is satisfied he can do it by order. He has even declined to submit his Orders to the Dáil, so that we are really asked to hand over to him the power to use his discretion with regard to the abolition of urban councils. I ask the Dáil to vote against that.
The Minister stresses the point that it is not his intention, but of course the point has often been made here that it is not the Minister's intention to do so and so. We may have another Minister. For instance, I can imagine Deputy Connor Hogan with this power in his hands as Minister for Local Government, gleefully getting his hands on the neck of the bane of his existence—the Clare County Council, or the Ennis Urban Council, or the Kilrush Urban Council.
Or maybe the Tipperary County Council.
I am inclined to think he would make his first dart at Clare. Really, it is not a question of what the Minister's intention is now, but what may be the intention of another Minister in the future, and the Minister will not deny that if this section is passed as it is a Minister would have the power to abolish urban district councils. Deputy Wilson gets up and apparently he has not read the section at all. He simply came down along and read as far as sub-section (a), and then he said to himself: "I have got Johnson at last, and he has made a mistake." He forgot to read sub-section (b). If he read that he would see why we object to allowing this sub-section to stand in the Bill.
Deputy Morrissey wants to have it both ways. Now, there are two alternatives; the council and the urban district can, of their volition, ask the Minister to merge them. If on inquiry it is found maladministration or something else occurs, the Minister then will have power of his volition to merge them. Now, that is a very reasonable proposition. You have democratic representation worked out to its fine edge. On the one side you have people wishing to merge; on the other side you have the public applying to the Minister to merge. That is the Bill.
It is a pity you did not make it a one-clause Bill.
Better let Deputy Wilson draft out the whole Bill.
Question—"That Section 61 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 33; Níl, 12.
Tá
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Conlan.
- Máighréad Ni Choileáin Bean Uí
- Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- D. Mac Conn Uladh.
- Seosamh Mac Bhrighde.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- John T. Nolan.
- Ml. K. Noonan.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O'Dubhghaill.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Donchadh S. O Guaire.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Liam Thrift.
- Nicholas Wall.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Peadar O hAodha.
Níl
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Aodh O Culacháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- David Hall.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 62.
In any town in which the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, is in force, the amount of any assessment under section 60 of that Act may, notwithstanding the limitations in that section, amount to but shall not exceed the amount of two shillings and six pence in the pound where the provisions of the said Act with respect to water have been adopted, or the amount of two shillings in the pound where such provisions with respect to water have not been adopted.
This is an obvious section. The existing limits of 1/- and 1/6 that were due to the enactment of the Towns' Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, with regard to water, have been found totally inadequate and, as a result, many towns are approaching bankruptcy. Accordingly it has been decided to increase this amount by 1/-.
Question—"That Section 62 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 63.
(1) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, shall be amended by the omission in each of the said paragraphs of the words "other than Poor Law Authorities."
(2) Sub-section (3) of Section 64 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, shall be amended by the omission of the words "not being Poor Law Authorities."
(3) Sub-section (4) of Section 64 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, shall be amended by the omission of the words "other than a Poor Law Authority."
This is another section which is purely consequential on the abolition of the poor law guardians.
Question—"That Section 63 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 64.
(1) The provisions of any enactment in force at the passing of this Act relating to any of the powers. duties, properties, or liabilities transferred to a county council or a board of health by this Act, shall be construed with such modifications as may be necessary to give effect to this Act.
(2) If any doubt, dispute, or question shall arise, or, in the opinion of the Minister, be likely to arise, as to whether any power, duty, property, or liability is or is not transferred by or under this Act to a county council or the board of health, such doubt, dispute, or question shall be decided by the Minister, and if such doubt, dispute, or question relates to the construction of any statute, order, or regulation, the Minister may by order specify the modifications which are to be made in such statute, order, or regulation under sub-section (1) of this section.
I beg to move:—
To insert before Section 64 a new section as follows:—
(1) From and after the passing of this Act it shall be lawful for any county council to contribute towards any county infirmary which is situate in their county, or to which though situate elsewhere they are by Statute empowered to contribute an annual sum not exceeding Four Hundred Pounds as a salary or salaries to the surgeon or surgeons thereof.
(2) In Section 86 of the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836, as adopted by the Local Government (Adaptation of Irish Enactments) Order, 1899, the words "Four Hundred Pounds" shall be substituted for the words "Ninety-four," and that section shall be and is hereby amended and shall have effect accordingly.
(3) The annual contribution authorised by this Act shall be in addition to the annual amount which may be contributed by a county council to any such county infirmary under any other Act.
When the County Infirmaries Act was passed in 1765 the salary of surgeons to infirmaries was fixed at £94 per annum. It is proposed to repeal Section 5 of that Act and Section 86 of the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836. I think the Minister will admit that a salary of £94 per year is not sufficient for the services of any surgeon to a county infirmary, and I hope he will accept the amendment.
I think I will be able to meet the Deputy, but only to a limited extent, in this matter. This amendment will only affect very few of those county infirmaries. I think there are only seven of them at present. Some of them will be taken over and become county hospitals, but in the case of the few others it will be impossible to take them over. The committee of a county infirmary is not a local authority within the meaning of this Bill. The county infirmary is managed by a committee appointed partly by the governors of the infirmary and partly by the council. The revenue is derived from various sources. Some of it comes from paying patients, some is raised by subscriptions, and some of it comes out of trust funds, and more is paid by the county council. Included in the latter payment is a sum not exceeding £94, paid as salary to the surgeon under Section 86 of the Grand Jury Act, 1836. So long as the county infirmary will not be run in opposition to the county hospital under a county scheme, I am in agreement that this sum of £94 is not adequate, and I would be prepared to have this sum increased if the local authority is in favour of increasing it and makes a recommendation to me to that effect, but the sum would want to be subject to my sanction. I would introduce an amendment to that effect on the Report Stage if it would meet with the Deputy's wishes.
I accept the undertaking that the Minister will bring in an amendment on the Report Stage to meet the case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 64 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 65.
(1) Where the business of any council or committee is transferred by this Act to any county council, the existing officers of that council or committee employed in that business shall, from and after the appointed day, become the officers of such county council in like manner, subject to the provisions of this section, as if they had been appointed by such county council, and any such officer may be transferred by such county council to the board of health of any county health district in such county.
(2) For the purposes of the enactments relating to superannuation or to compensation for loss of office, the services of any existing officer of any such council or committee before his transfer under this section to a county council or a board of health shall be reckoned as services under that county council or board of health.
(3) If any existing officer of a rural district council is removed from office in consequence of changes effected by or under this Act, the cost of any compensation granted to such officer for such loss of office shall be charged on the area of the county to the council of which the business of such rural district council is transferred by this Act, exclusive of the area of any urban district in such county.
(4) In this section the expression "existing officer" means any officer who is in office on the appointed day.
Amendment No. 93 not moved.
On behalf of Deputy Cole, I beg to move the following amendment:—
To add at the end of sub-section (1) the words: "and existing officers of district councils shall where eligible and able to perform the duties get first preference in order of seniority as officials of any county council or board of health."
I do not think this amendment needs very much arguing. It is intended to reduce the burden of pensions on the ratepayers by providing that where existing officers of rural district councils are suitable for employment under the county council or board of health they shall get first preference when there is a vacancy. A similar amendment was moved by Deputy Cole earlier in the Bill, and I understand that the Minister promised to make some statement on Section 65 as to the possibility of carrying through this policy. I, therefore, move the amendment, which, I think, merely on its own merits, is justified, but I have moved it to give the Minister an opportunity of making a statement.
I support the amendment. I understand what was in Deputy Cole's mind, and I am sure the conditions would be similar in every county. We shall have clerks of district councils, young men in many cases, eligible and capable of filling positions which will be created under this Bill. I am afraid there would be a tendency on the part of some of our councils or boards of health or some members, at any rate, to say: "We will leave that man; he has got a pension and we will give this position to a new man." That will naturally entail further expenditure on the ratepayers, which might be saved by the acceptance of the amendment, because it would then be an obligation on the council or committee to give preference to ex-officials of abolished local authorities, where they were capable and eligible to discharge the duties. If the Minister accepts the amendment he will be putting in a safeguard that will protect the ratepayers, and where that can be done, it is the Minister's duty to do it.
I support the idea embodied in this amendment, although I am afraid that it will have to be recast in some way. But it is very desirable that men who have been displaced and are fit and eligible should have the refusal at least, and preference over persons who have not been hitherto employed in local government, in any posts that are being created by this Bill under the county council or board of health. I am not quite sure how the test of seniority is going to be applied in respect to officials of different rural district councils, but I support the proposal that existing officers should be absorbed into local government administrative offices before any outsiders are brought in. As Deputy Baxter has pointed out, one effect would be the minimisation of the charge for pensions. Above that, and more important to the officers concerned, is that they should not be relegated to the chances of the unemployed market because the county council desires to appoint either political favourites or personal friends to these new offices that will inevitably be created by this Bill.
AN CEANN COMHAIRLE resumed the Chair.
The section as it stands amply meets the point. Under this section officers of the rural district councils automatically become officers of the county council who can either continue them as their officers have them appointed to the board of health, or, if they find it necessary, can pension them. It would certainly be a very extraordinary thing if the councils were to dispense with the services of men who were their own officers, to make room for new appointments. In order to reassure Deputies, I am willing to accept the principle of the amendment. I could not accept it in its present form as there will have to be several changes made in it, and it will be a matter of some difficulty to give effect to its intentions, without actually doing more or less than is intended. Several of these expressions are not capable of proper legal interpretation, such as "giving first preference,""in order of seniority," and various phrases of that kind. The working out of that, as it stands, will be extremely difficult. I will look into it between this and the Report Stage and undertake to bring in some amendment that will embody that principle.
I would like to remind the Minister that there are some extraordinary county councils. There were some extraordinary county councils, and there are now commissioners instead. It is possible that the cases contemplated by Deputy Cole might have arisen in which county councils would have loaded the ratepayers with pensions, and then proceeded to appoint new officials from outside. As the Minister has accepted the principle of the amendment, I agree that this amendment could not go in as it stands. As a result of the Minister's undertaking I will withdraw the amendment on Deputy Cole's behalf.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
In sub-section (4), line 55, to insert after the word "day" the words "after the passing of this Act."
I want to find out from the Minister what is "the appointed day." Does the sub-section mean an officer who was in office at the passing of the Bill, or does it mean an officer who was in office in the year 1898, as mentioned in Section 49. I put down the amendment in order to get an explanation from the Minister as to what is meant by "the appointed day."
I cannot see anything in the Deputy's amendment.
If there is no meaning in it then it will do no harm.
It will be a job for the lawyers.
Does not "the appointed day" occur after the passing of the Act? "The expression ‘the appointed day' means the day appointed by the Minister to be the appointed day for the purposes of this Act."
Does "the appointed day" mean after the passing of the Act? It may refer to officials in office in 1898, which is "the appointed day" mentioned in the other part of the Bill.
Perhaps the Deputy will withdraw the amendment, and if he is not satisfied before the next stage he can bring it on again.
It would certainly give the Minister more time to read the Bill.
I was looking to see what part of the section it was, in order to tell the Deputy where he could find information that I think all the other Deputies have. It is definition 10.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Before we pass this section I would like to remind the Minister of a half-promise he gave me to consider the case of a certain class of officials, very few in number, who do not seem to be adequately dealt with under this section or Section 37. All officials, old and young, can look forward to a continuance of employment at any rate in an equal status under this section. It is all right for young officials, but for those getting on in years it will be a considerable strain to undertake new and heavy work. Under Section 37 those who are 65 years of age and who have 20 years' service may retire with the permission of the Minister. The other class, few in number, that have about 30 years' service, but who have not reached the age of 65 years are, probably, not capable of taking up this new work. I think they ought to have the right to retire subject, of course, to the decision of the Minister, if they feel they are not able to go on with the work. I would ask the Minister to be kind enough to redeem his promise and to consider the matter on the Report Stage.
Under the Bill there is ample power to deal with cases of that kind. There is no reason why men should be compelled to perform duties under this Bill that they are not able to perform. There is ample power, under the Bill, to give them pensions.
These officers have long service, but they have not reached 65 years.
If their office is abolished their case is dealt with under Section 37.
