Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Dec 1924

Vol. 9 No. 21

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1924 (THIRD STAGE RESUMED).

Question—"That Section 65 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 66.

This is to meet a situation arising out of the conflict with the British forces previous to the Truce. Certain local authorities were induced to surrender their leases for courthouses in order to obstruct the functioning of the British Government. Certain landlords availed of that war measure in order to prevent the County Councils getting back those courthouses again. This section is to enable County Councils to recover those courthouses, which are very necessary for carrying on the judicial work of the counties, and the interests of bona fide purchasers are protected in the section.

I would like to know from the Minister what is the position of County Councils as regards compensation for damaged courthouses, because I think there was an order sent out from the Local Government Department of the Second Dáil at the time courthouses were being destroyed that no application was to be made in the courts for compensation. Has the time passed by when they could make application for compensation? I would like to know what is the position as regards the reinstatement of courthouses. All over the country courthouses have been damaged. It would not be fair to ask the ratepayers to reinstate those courthouses.

If those courthouses were damaged by irregular forces——

There were some of them damaged pre-Truce. In Wexford town the courthouse was down before the Truce.

I expect they would come under the Shaw Commission in the ordinary way.

I think if the Minister makes enquiries he will find that the County Councils at that time did not make application for compensation, and the time within which they could do so was allowed to lapse. Before agreeing to this Section I think it only right that the Dáil should give some information as to what is the actual position of each County Council, if there are damaged courthouses in its area, and if the damage took place before the Truce.

I must say that does not arise on the Section, and that I have no knowledge of it.

I submit it does, now that the County Councils are asked to have courthouses taken over again, which they surrendered on the instructions of the Ministry. It is not a question of taking over courthouses, but the liability to put them back in the state of repair they were in before being destroyed.

This is a point that I have not had any previous notice of. I will look into it before the Report Stage.

I think it is really worth considering.

I would like to point out that this is a question affecting not one county but many. I must say, from my experience, that it is very difficult to get the Ministry of Finance to do anything in the matter. The county councils are ordered by one Department to provide courthouses, but the position is that finances are not forthcoming to enable them to do so. I think it is for the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to bring pressure to bear on the Minister for Finance to discharge his liability in this respect.

When examining that question, I would like if the Minister would look into another matter that has arisen recently in connection with the rents of courthouses. Claims are being made on the county council for rent of the courthouses during the four years they were not being used. The matter is rather important. The county council I am interested in refused to pay, and the matters is now in the hands of solicitors.

I think that is dealt with by sub-section (a).

That makes it clear. The question of courthouses is important. Deputy Baxter has suggested that the Minister in charge of this Bill should bring pressure to bear on the Ministry of Finance with a view to paying compensation. A worse aspect of the matter is that certain county councils have not made application in any court for compensation, in accordance with instructions issued by the Department of Local Government in the Second Dáil. I do not think it would be a good thing for the Ministry of Local Government and Public Health to ask county councils to take over courthouses that were extensively damaged in pre-Truce days when no compensation is available, or without their position being made absolutely clear.

The section is permissive, and if a county council does not wish to avail of it they need not do so.

That is a question I wanted to raise. What is meant by this: "If the Minister shall so direct"?

"Shall be entitled."

"Shall be entitled." It seems to me you are simply legalising an action which the Minister directs shall be done. It is practically saying, on the part of the Minister, that the county councils ought to take over these courthouses, and that they must do so. I do not think that is the Minister's intention, but it is the import and purport of the section, if it is passed in its present form. I do not think it is desirable that a council should be obliged, at the Minister's direction, to take over courthouses in these circumstances. The circumstances will be such that a council will have to pay rent from the date of surrender, and such other compensation as the Minister shall direct. In these circumstances the councils will not have a discretion if the Minister decides to direct them to do certain things.

May I say that I am of opinion that the Minister for Justice has certain powers to order county councils to take over courthouses.

To provide a courthouse.

I am not a bit keen on this section, as it is one that hardly concerns my Department. It is put in to oblige other people, and if Deputies have any objection, I am willing that it should be deleted.

I move that the section be deleted, as it involves certain liabilities that I would not be prepared to ask county councils to undertake.

Question—"That Section 66 stand part of the Bill"—put and negatived.
Section accordingly deleted.
NEW SECTION.

On behalf of Deputy Thrift, I move the following amendment:

To insert before section 67 a new section as follows:—

The expression "Mental Hospital" shall be substituted for "lunatic asylum" wherever the latter words occur in any Act or Order, and the name of the "Richmond District Lunatic Asylum" shall be altered to "Grangegorman Mental Hospital."

The substitution of the name mental hospital for asylum is in keeping with the spirit of the times, and the general feelings of humanity.

I am quite agreeable to the spirit of the amendment, but it is one that may lead to consequential amendments of various kinds. I think it would be better to leave it over to be dealt with by the Commission inquiring into the whole question.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 67 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 68 and 69 and the First Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
RULES REGULATING THE PROCEEDINGS OF BOARDS OF HEALTH.
1. A board of health shall consist of a chairman and nine other persons who shall be elected by the county council from amongst their members at the annual meetings of the council held next after a triennial election, and the election of such persons shall be part of the first business to be transacted at such annual meeting.
2. The members of a board of health shall hold office until the day after the day when their successors are appointed under Rule 1 of this Schedule.
3. The quorum of a board of health shall consist of three members.
4. A member of a board of health who ceases to be, or is disqualified for being, a member of the county council by whom he was appointed, shall also cease to be, or be disqualified for being, a member of the board of health.
5. Any member of the council of a county may with the consent of not less than one-fourth of the members of such council at any time notify the secretary of the council in writing of this intention to propose that the membership of any member of the board of health of a county health district in such county shall be terminated, and the secretary shall thereupon summon a special meeting of the county council for a date not later than one month from the receipt by him of such notification, and shall give to every member of the county council at least fourteen days' notice thereof, and in the event of a resolution being passed at such meeting approving of such proposal by a majority consisting of not less than two-thirds of the council, the membership of such member of the board of health shall be thereupon terminated.
6. The membership of any member of a board of health who, for a consecutive period of three months, has not attended a meeting of such board, shall thereupon be terminated and the county council, at their meeting next after the expiration of such period, shall appoint one of their members to fill the vacancy so created in the membership of the board of health.
7. A member of a board of health may at any time resign his membership by writing signed by him and delivered to the secretary of the county council and to the secretary of the board of health, but such resignation shall not become effective until the meeting of the county council held next after the receipt of such writing.
8. Every board of health shall hold one annual meeting in each year, and shall hold a meeting for the transaction of their business at least once in each month and at such other times as may be necessary for properly exercising their powers and performing their duties.
9. The annual meeting of every board of health shall be held in each year within one month after the anniversary of the last election of such board of health.
10. At every meeting of a board of health the chairman of the board, if present, shall be chairman of the meeting, and if he is not present such member of the board as the members then present shall choose shall be chairman of the meeting.
11. The chairman at a meeting of a board of health shall have a second or casting vote.
12. Casual vacancies occurring in a board of health shall be filled by the county council within one month after their occurrence, or within such further time as the Minister may allow.
13. The conduct of the business and the order of the proceedings of a board of health shall be in accordance with regulations to be from time to time made by the Minister.
14. The accounts of the receipts and expenditure of every board of health and its committees and officers shall be made up half-yearly to the 30th day of September and 31st day of March in each year, in such form as the Minister may prescribe, and shall be audited by such person as the Minister may appoint for that purpose.

I move:—

Second Schedule—To delete Rule 1 and substitute therefor a new rule as follows—

A board of health shall consist of—

(a) nine persons elected by the county council from among its members;

(b) two persons elected by each council of an urban district within the county;

(c) such number not exceeding five as the county council may think fit of persons not being members of the county council or of an urban district council to be elected by the county council after consultation with the councils of urban districts within the county, and with associations representing persons engaged in the administration of health services or actively engaged in promoting the health and welfare of the people in the county. The election shall take place at the annual meeting of the county council or of the urban district council as the case may be, next after a triennial election and shall be part of the first business of such meeting. If three or more persons are to be elected the elections shall be conducted on the principle of proportional representation.

As the rule stands in the Bill, the board of health consists only of members of a county council, and there is no guarantee that an urban district will be represented on it. The amendment provides that an urban district as such should be represented on boards of health. Urban districts are contributory bodies in regard to finances. We all know very well that nearly threequarters of the functions of a board of health are in relation to urban districts, which in comparison with rural districts are densely populated, and the applications for home assistance are much greater. There is another reason, too. The urban districts come under the superintendence of medical officers of health, provided under Section 19, and they come under the board of health for matters specified in the Third Schedule, such as tuberculosis committees, blind pensions committees, etc., and in the event of dissolution under Section 61 they would come under the board of health for a variety of purposes. Therefore, the representation of urban districts on the board of health ought not to be left to chance. As things stand at present a party with a bare majority on the county council could control the board of health altogether. There are many reasons, which should be apparent, why urban districts should have the right to representation on boards of health.

The amendment also creates a possibility of appointing on the board of health a small number of persons with special qualifications in health and social questions, and, to my mind, that is the most important part of the amendment. A county board of health ought to be more than a county board of health in name, and I am sure that Deputies will agree that the most active and energetic workers in health and poor law administration are people who do not generally go up for election. I think it would be very necessary to have people of that class on a county board of health. You can put up several reasons, and one of the most important to my mind is this—and this argument was put forward when we were trying to induce the Minister to agree to the appointment of local committees—that it is necessary to have people especially from the towns on these boards of health, because, as I say, most of the applications come of necessity from the towns for home assistance. As the Bill stands, it is quite possible that you would have no representatives whatever from the urban districts. The amendment also seeks to secure that the election to the county board of health by the county council should be conducted on the principle of proportional representation.

I think that that will appeal to every member of the Dáil because, at the moment, a bare majority on a council might appoint all the members on the county board of health. I do not think that that is wise. I think, if there are three or four parties on a county council, each party should have proportional representation on the county board of health. I think that that would ensure that there would be a greater variety of people than if the county board of health were composed solely of members of a particular party, I do not care what party it may be. I think that that point in the amendment is important, that the county board of health should be elected on the proportional representation system. I commend this amendment to the Minister and ask him to accept it in the interests of the working of the county boards of health and in the interests of the people for whom those boards will be administered. There is no reason to fear that the members of the county council on the county board of health can be outvoted or that they will be in a minority. The members appointed by the county council will always be in a majority, but I contend that it is absolutely essential to the successful working of the county boards of health to have representatives from urban districts and to have a small number of people with special qualifications in health and poor law administration upon these boards.

I cannot agree to accept this amendment. Deputy Morrissey complains that committees, such as Tuberculosis Committees, will be under the county authority now, but in that respect they will be no worse off under the present Bill than they were before under the county councils. With regard to the representation of county councils and county boards of health, I think that the rural districts have, perhaps, more to complain of than the urban districts. I wonder that a somewhat similar amendment to that of Deputy Morrissey has not been put forward on behalf of the rural districts by our friends on the left, because previously the county council had representatives upon it from every rural district, and the chairman of every rural district was an ex-officio member of the county council. Under the new system there will be no such additional representation of the rural areas, and, consequently, the representation of urban districts will proportionately be much stronger. I see no reason why urban districts should not be well represented both on the county council and on the county board of health. With regard to having nominated members on the county board of health. I think that that would be a mistake. The county boards of health under this Bill will probably be the most important body in the county, and it will share in all responsibilities, but it will not have control of finance. It will be a busier body than the county council, and I do not think it is right that a body with such very heavy responsibilities should be independent of the electorate.

Provision is made to set up committees by the board of health, and that will give all the scope necessary for the appointment of individuals with special knowledge. Where a committee dealing with technical or special matters is to be set up every facility is given to include upon it members with special knowledge. I think that should meet the Deputy on that point. With regard to proportional representation, I realise that there is a point in the Deputy's amendment, but it is not very easy to see how effect can be given to it. I would like to see these boards of health representative in two different ways. I would like to see them representative, particularly as regards areas. I would much prefer that than to see them representative of parties, although if we must have parties on boards of health, I think it is a good things that we should have these bodies representative of different parties also. I do not think that the Deputy's amendment enables me to give effect to that desire and to make sure that on the boards of health we shall have representatives from every electoral area. I would like to see that, as I think it would be a good thing so that no particular area would be neglected.

There is nothing in the Schedule which would give the Minister what he seeks.

I am only pointing out that and saying that I consider it is a weakness. I think it would be a good thing if we could ensure that county boards of health would be representative of all parties in the county, but I do not think that the wording of the amendment will secure that effect. Perhaps some other suggestions will be put forward to help us in coming to a conclusion on this question.

In the first place, I want to say that I rather like the way the Minister appealed to the Farmers' Benches for support. He suggested that, to his mind, there should be an identical amendment from the Farmers' Benches, and he said that so far as he could see there was more reason for it. There is no parallel at all, so far as representation from rural and urban districts is concerned. A great part of the time of the county board of health will be taken up in the consideration of applications for home help, and I think the Minister ought to see the absolute necessity there is for direct representation of urban centres on the county board. We are living in very abnormal times, when people are on the verge of starvation, because of the economic condition that prevails, and it is not unreasonable to ask that a minority of the board of health should be composed of members from urban areas, where there is the greater congestion, and the greater demand for home help. Surely, it is not too much to ask that. Personally, I would be well satisfied if we could get representation from the urban areas on the county board for the purpose only of considering questions of home help. As to the point made by the Minister with regard to the rural population losing representatives from rural areas—that is in the matter of the chairmen of the district councils— I would point out that two men would be put on from each rural area in place of the one representative.

Each electoral area.

I quite understand that, but it is the rural population will elect these two men, and it certainly is not an argument against urban representation to suggest that they lose representation when they are getting another representative in his place.

Urban districts will have a say in electing these representatives, and heretofore only rural councils had that say.

Very little, and I challenge the Minister to produce the figures in each electoral area, and he will find that the urban areas will get about one-third of the representation in each county. Supposing the feeling prevails in the rural areas that the towns are receiving too much home help, it follows, as night the day, that the rural population, which will, I expect, have the greater number of representatives on the county boards, will combine together in order to secure that the urban population will not be represented on the board. They are in the position to do that, because they will have the greater number of representatives. I ask the Minister—and this is a variation of Deputy Morrissey's amendment, but I think the Minister should concede the point—that for the purpose of the consideration of home help urban centres should have some representation for that purpose alone.

I expected when the Minister got up that he would give some reasons why he could not accept the amendment, but he has not put forward a single argument. The Minister spoke, as Deputy Corish has remarked, about the farmers bringing forward a similar amendment. I suggest to the Minister that the urban districts contribute their share to the finances of the county board of health, and the people I am asking him to put on that board are elected representatives, the same as members of the county council. The Minister knows, or should know, that the county councils are practically completely composed of farmer representatives. The number of urban representatives on a county council is very small. Three-fourths of the business of a county board of health has to do with urban districts, and the Minister knows that also. There is no use in people jumping to the conclusion that the only reason for putting on direct representatives from urban districts is to see that the people who apply for home help will get it.

There is another reason, and that is those representatives will be there to see that people who are not entitled to help will not get it, and that the home help will not be abused. I think the amendment should be accepted. With regard to what the Minister has said about the small number to be nominated by the county council having no responsibility to the electorate, might I remind him that his commissioners have no responsibility to the electorate either. A small number will be selected or nominated by the county council, and the council, as representing the ratepayers, are not going to select three, four, or five people, except they know they are people who will have a fair regard for the rates, as well as a fair regard for the people whom they are there to assist. I can see nothing unreasonable in the amendment, and I can see no reason why the Minister should not accept it. As to the Minister's reference to the farmers, I can tell him that several members of the Farmers' Party—I do not see them here now—told me they were in favour of this amendment, and would vote for it.

In the course of the discussion in the earlier stages of this Bill we had from the Minister, and several members of the Party behind him, and from two or three of the Farmers' representatives, statements all leading to the conclusion that inevitably localities would be represented on the board of health. It is quite clear from the discussions that the members of the Dáil desire and expect that each district in a county shall have a representative on the county board of health. Arguments used by the Minister against certain other amendments were put forward to the effect that the claim for such representation was unnecessary, as committees were to be appointed, and it was said that these committees would certainly and inevitably represent the districts. There is no certainty and no inevitability in the Bill in that respect, and this amendments attempts to ensure that urban districts will have representatives on the board.

If there is any sincerity in the plea put forward in the earlier stages that the districts ought to be represented, here is the opportunity to prove that. With reference to the paragraph of this amendment which speaks of a number not exceeding five nominated representatives, the Minister has attempted to refute the argument of Deputy Morrissey on this point by saying that the board of health will be the most responsible authority in the county, except in matters of finance, and therefore it should be wholly an elected body. But the sub-committee to be nominated by the board of health, either from districts or, for general purposes, not from districts, at the discretion of the board will have the working to a great extent of the system, and the Bill provides that one person on these committees shall be a member of the board of health, and others may be nominated.

Now, in relation to the board of health, the powers of these sub-committees will be just as great as the powers of the board of health itself. The county council, which is to be a wholly elected body, is to be the financial authority. The nominated person in either case will not be the financial authority, but the financial authority will be the county council, which is to be wholly elected. If there is anything in the Minister's point that there should be no nominated persons, no select persons but only elected persons on the board of health, because of the powers they will wield—if there is anything, I say, in that it applies to a very much greater extent to the sub-committee of the board of health which the Minister has defended, because the Bill only provides that one person on the sub-committee shall be a member of the board of health. The others may be all nominated and you may have a majority of nominated persons.

These committees will only have very limited powers, but this is a body with very great power. It is a statutory body, and is probably the most important body in the county.

True, but the Minister referred to the question of finance. He has insisted upon the fact, time and time again, that the county council will still retain the financial powers and the financial authority, and that the board of health, which may have a minority of five in twenty, under this proposition it may nominate specialists, persons with special knowledge, but still they will have no final authority over finance. Leaving that aside, the amendment attempts to put into operation what has been generally expressed in the Dáil, first that every district in the county should be sure of representation on the board of health. Now, as the Bill stands there is no such certainly. The county council is to elect nine persons and a chairman from amongst its members. So far as the Bill goes, apart from common sense, they may all come from one end of the county. They may deliberately leave out of representation one or two parts of the county, and they may deliberately leave out the representation of urban districts on the board of health. If they do so there is no breach of the law and no contravention of their responsibilities. We are seeking to ensure that, at least, two persons in the urban districts shall be attached to the board of health.

Surely there is nothing extraordinary or extravagant in trying to ensure that the urban districts will have representation on the authority which, as the Minister says, is to be the most important public authority in the county, the most important administrative body affecting the area concerned. Now, the Minister would like to ensure that the board of health would be representative of the council. He would like that it should be representative of districts but he is afraid to provide for it. He would like that the board of health to be elected by the county council should be representative of all groups of opinion within the council. But he does not like the idea of parties, and for my part I would like that once a county council got, into business that the party idea should not prevail to any great extent. There will be bodies of opinion, however, and there will be districts represented and the Minister wants to ensure that districts shall be represented. Paragraph (b) would ensure that. It would ensure that districts shall be represented as far as urban districts go. He could, if he wished, ensure that electoral areas shall be represented, but he has not done so. If he is not prepared to see the practicability of the proportional representation method being adopted with the practice that we are evolving in regard to the carrying on of elections by proportional representation, I at any rate cannot see where the impracticability arises.

There is, perhaps, a precedent in our own Standing Orders to secure the same end without having the same machinery not perhaps as certain in its working but at least designed for the same end. Standing Order 63 states: "Committees shall, as far as possible, be representative of all parties and opinions in the Dáil." If the Minister is afraid to introduce the machinery of proportional representation in the election of committees he at least ought to express in the Bill something of the same idea, even if it can only be called a pious expression of the Dáil's opinion. There should be no real difficulty in embodying in the schedule a provision that would ensure that the various bodies of opinion in the county council shall have representation on the board of health. If he would also ensure, as we desire in this amendment, that each urban district shall have representation, and would go a little bit further and ensure that each electoral area and each rural district would have representation, then we should be satisfied and quite pleased to assist him. We are attempting to put into practical operation in this amendment what the Minister himself as well as several Deputies on his own side and several Deputies amongst the Farmers' have indicated as their desire. I hope that they will again express that desire, and see if we cannot arrive at some practical scheme so that the various districts in a county, as well as groups of opinion in a county, shall be ensured representation on the board of health.

I agree with the amendment and I say it is absolutely essential that there should be direct representation in the case of urban districts. Take the case of a county councillor who lives a mile, say, outside a town. It will be impossible for him to know the needs of the poor in that town. He would need to live in the town to get an intimate knowledge of their condition, and it is only an urban representative who would be able to look after the interests of these people. The amendment, in my opinion, is a very reasonable one, and I trust that no Deputy in the Dáil will object to it.

I must say that I consider the attitude taken up by Deputies on the opposite benches as being unreasonable. The proposal they make is really inequitable. Under this Bill home help will be a county at large charge. That will mean that urban areas will naturally get more than their share of home help. Not satisfied with that they want me to go further still and so give them over-representation on the body that will be distributing this home help. That is what their proposal amounts to.

Will you give any representation on it?

The urban areas have exactly the same representation on it as the rural areas.

Does not the Minister know quite well that on the county council the majority of the members are going to be rural representatives and that it will be their desire to have rural representatives on the county board of health? I would like the Minister to make that point quite clear, because he knows well that that is what is going to happen.

There is no reason why the urban representatives on the county council should not be able to have their members elected on the county board of health.

Will the Minister show us how that is going to be done?

How can urban representatives get representation on the board of health when they will be in a helpless minority in the county council?

They should at least be able to get one-third of the representation in any county. I have no objection to having election by proportional representation. I was trying to draft an attempt to give representation according to the electoral areas. I think it more important to have each area represented than to have each party represented, and I was proposing to bring in, on the Report Stage, something to this effect:—

"The members of a board of health for a county health district shall, unless the county council is of opinion that the most efficient administration of the powers, duties, and functions of such boards of health requires the contrary, include at least one member elected a member of the county council for each county electoral area portion of which is situated in the county health district."

I was thinking of bringing in a proposal of that kind which would ensure that there should be representation for electoral areas in the county, but it would be a very difficult thing to ensure, at the same time, representation of each party. I think it would be almost impossible to combine the two.

We are not asking for party representation at all.

Would you be satisfied with representation of large electoral areas?

If you give representation to urban areas as well.

But that means double representation. It means giving direct representation, and changing the whole Bill. Instead of the board of health being the creature of the county council it would actually become an independent body.

Does not the Minister realise that the county council is in a position to elect the board of health. The county council would be completely composed of rural representatives, and there is nothing to prevent it doing what I suggest. The urban areas cannot get a majority on the county council even if the people vote.

As far as I see the proposal which the Minister brings forward now, it will give representation to urban areas because the urban areas as I know them are electoral areas as well, and elect county councillors for their own areas. If each electoral area gets representation on the board of health the urban areas must have representation on the board of health.

Does the Minister for Defence say that an urban area in itself is an electoral area?

It is not unless it is a county borough.

You are making a great mistake. I know at least two in the county I come from that are not county boroughs. There are electoral areas for the county council and they elect people to the county council. There may be, in connection with the urban districts, perhaps a rural electoral division. It was one of the old electoral divisions that was put in along with the urban district for the purposes of working proportional representation, but for all intents and purposes, elections take place and it is generally the urban member that is elected in that district, and that is the reason why I say that the amendment of the Minister will give representation to the urban districts. I may say here that I am in sympathy with members opposite in representation being given to urban districts on these county boards of health, and I believe that what the Minister has sketched out when put in its proper form, if accepted on these lines, will give the representation desired.

If what the Minister for Defence has said was the position, and that would be achieved by the amendment of the Minister for Local Government, I would be satisfied with it, but it is not. It may be the position in a small county like that which the Minister represents with a couple of very large towns in it. But I will give another case. I know of a town in an electoral area, and that electoral area returns six members to the county council, and out of the six members returned by that electoral area I think two come from the urban district. The Minister for Local Government said he was giving a special representative to the urban districts, but as Deputy Corish asked, does not the Minister realise that the position is at the moment, that any county council of the twenty-six counties could have if they wished the county board of health composed altogether of rural representatives? That is the position, and the Minister knows that is the position with regard to the two county councils in his own constituency. They have more than two-thirds majority on these county councils and there is nothing in this Bill as it stands at present that guarantees that there should be even a single representative on them from the urban districts. I ask the Minister to face the actual position and to try and consider for a moment that, as I said before, three-fourths of the business done by the county board of health has to do with the urban district, and it is quite possible under the Bill that although three-fourths of the business has to do with urban districts there may not be one single representative of the urban district on the board of health.

I must disagree with the Deputy with regard to the town he indicates. He says he knows a case where out of six representatives in an electoral area not two are representatives of the urban area.

No, I said two were representatives of the urban area.

Two out of six? But that is only natural. There are other cases quite the other way about. In the electoral area where Clonmel is situated the urban electors would completely swamp the rural representatives. The electors of that town are almost sufficiently numerous to elect a Parliamentary candidate let alone a representative to the county council. I am inclined to think that in the Deputy's own town of Nenagh, the urban would swamp the electoral area.

That is the town I mentioned.

At any rate, there is one town I can point to where that is the case, and I am sure in the constituency of the Minister for Defence and in other counties there are large towns where there are sufficient electors to elect a representative if we put in this new amendment.

Would the Minister take the County Carlow?

Or would he take the County Wexford? The town of Wexford has a population of 12,000 people.

I would like to back up what Deputy Morrissey has said in this. In the constituency of North Cork there are two county electoral areas and one urban district council area, and in that urban area—Macroom —the total urban electorate is something less than one-tenth of the total in the Macroom county electoral area. In the constituency of West Cork there are three county electoral areas. In one there is no urban district council at all. In the other two there is one, and practically the same proportion applies, practically one-ninth or one-tenth in the urban area to the total, so that practically in West Cork and North Cork there would not be a single representative of the urban electoral area on the county council. That same does not apply to East Cork, because they have a few towns—Cobh, Mallow and Fermoy—where the population is high, but in the bulk of the county Cork Deputy Morrissey's illustrations would be right.

I am thinking of the absence in this Bill of any surety that people with a knowledge of the district and the people in the district will be brought into the administration of the health laws. Let us take the question of home help. Take a small urban district. Surely there ought to be somebody in that town with a knowledge of the recipients of home help. There is nothing in the Bill to include that. You have a plan of sub-committees of the board of health, but that does not provide that there "shall" be local committees. You may have local committees or you may not. You may have general committees on which there may be no representation of the urban districts, and the only persons who would be in touch with the recipients of home help would be the superintendent of home help or the administrative officer. That is surely a difficulty. There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that local knowledge will be brought to bear on local administration with respect to urban districts. It might happen in three-fourths or nine-tenths of the cases, as a matter of common sense, but let us legislate to prevent even one-tenth being brought under that kind of disfranchisement.

If the intention and the desire is that local districts shall have representation, that local committees shall be appointed for assistance in the administration of home help, we should express it. We have failed to express it so far. Let us, at least, try to ensure that some voice will come from the urban districts, so that there will be an added chance of ensuring representation of those urban districts on the sub-committees of the board of health. At present we have no assurance that any local district shall be represented either on the subcommittee or the board of health, and any local area may be overborne by a county council majority. I think there ought to be no hesitation in accepting an amendment of some kind or other which will ensure that such representation shall be secured.

I think that the fears of the Deputies on the Labour benches have no foundation in fact. My experience at county councils, rural councils, and county boards is that things will be otherwise than anticipated by the Deputies on the Labour benches. If there is such a thing as over-representation on any of the boards I am acquainted with, it is in favour of those representing the urban areas. They are always able to look after themselves and I anticipate they will be able to look after themselves in the future. There is no necessity at all for this amendment and I do not see why we should have "shall" for one and "may" for another. My experience is that they are able to take care of themselves.

This Bill is going to prevent that.

It is not. It is going to give them the same facilities as anyone else. The amendment is directed towards giving them representation that no one else has.

I notice with reference to the constitution of the boards of health that sub-section (2) of Section 11 states: "The constitution, proceedings, and accounts of boards of health, and the tenure of office of the members thereof, shall be regulated by the rules contained in the Second Schedule to this Act." Section 61 says that the Minister may incorporate for the purpose of the board of health the urban district council of any district. There is nothing at all, as I read sub-section 2, or the section which gives him the power to incorporate an urban district in the board of health, which ensures that representation from that urban district should follow incorporation of the district. If I am wrong the Minister will put me right. As I understand it at the moment, the constitution does not take in the urban district, except the Minister decides under this section we are discussing to incorporate the urban district. If he so decides, will he show us where he has power to give representation to that urban council on the board of health? That is really the point at issue. As the Bill stands at present, I see nothing which entitles such an urban council to have representation on the board of health with which it is incorporated.

Does the Deputy mean that the urban councils alone should have representation?

No one wants that.

How many urban district councils are in the board of health areas and what is the number contemplated in the Bill?

The board of health is constituted from the county council. The county council is elected from the whole county, and on it every urban area has the same representation as every rural area.

I read Section 11, sub-section 2. Now I will read the opening paragraph of Section 61:—

"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."

Assuming he does, where does that urban district get representation when incorporated?

I am sorry that Deputy Good did not see his way to support my amendment last night, when I objected to that clause in the Bill. The section was allowed to pass through and, in my opinion, it is one of the many faults in the Bill. I do not think much can be said, beyond what has been said, to convince the Minister that the leaving out of the urban areas is a great weakness in the measure. There can be no doubt in anybody's mind that it is from the urban areas that the greatest demand will come for home assistance. They are the most populous and the most congested areas. The people are huddled together in them. I know two urban districts which have only one resident county councillor. All the other county councillors are rural representatives. The electoral divisions are so arranged that the rural representatives predominate. From that, it follows that they will predominate in the board of health and right down the line. The most necessitous people will have the least representation. There will be nobody to say who is in need of home assistance in the urban areas and who is not. As a Deputy has said, a county councillor, to know the needs of an urban district, must live in the heart of an urban district. He will not know the needs of the district if he lives on the outskirts. To know who requires home assistance, he must live in the centre of the district. I suggest that it is just as much a safeguard to Deputy Gorey's party as it is an advantage to the poor people seeking home assistance that there should be representation from the urban areas.

Deputy Good raised a point—it is a small matter—regarding towns which are disurbanised. That town, in the ordinary course of events, has representation on the county council, and presumably, in that way, it will have representation indirectly on a county board of health, the same as the rural areas.

"Presumably."

The same thing applies to rural areas, and why make fish of one and flesh of another? When a town is disurbanised, presumably it does not wish any longer to have the responsibility of being a sanitary area or having direct representation of its own——

Has not the Minister power to disurbanise——

Let the Minister conclude.

I merely want to ask the Minister a question.

The Deputy can ask the question afterwards.

In the ordinary way, that urban area becomes part of the rural area, so that I do not see that there is anything in Deputy Good's point.

Has not the Minister power to disurbanise a town without any representations being made to him at all?

He has, but that has nothing to do with the point.

It has a lot to do with it.

Under the constitution, where an urban council is excluded from the board of health, it cannot be said to have representation on a body that it is excluded from. I think the Minister will admit that, as a basis from which to start.

I do not see how it is excluded from the board of health.

I think Deputy Good's argument cuts both ways. Urban areas are not included in the board of health districts, but those urban areas have got a say in electing the board of health to deal with matters that do not concern them. In fact, they have unnecessary representation, and I do not see what objection he has. Under the Bill urban areas are represented on the county council, which elects the board of health, which does not deal with their affairs.

When they come within the board of health should they not have direct representation?

Will the Minister go so far as to ensure, by provision in the Bill, that the sub-committees that are to be appointed by the board of health, or which may be appointed by the board of health, shall represent the various districts, urban and rural, in the county? That would go some way towards meeting our point. So far, there is no assurance that any other person than the administrative officer will be in touch with the administration of home help in any part of the county.

I wonder would the Minister be prepared to reconsider this whole matter between now and the Report Stage?

I have gone as far as I can go in offering to allow every electoral area to be represented on the board of health.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 29.

  • John Daly
  • Seán Buitléir.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • John Good.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Seán O Laidhin.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl

  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Proinsias Bulfin.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • Maighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • M. Egan.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • M.K. Noonan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Partholán O Conchubhair.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon O Dúgáin.
  • Donchadh O Guaire.
  • Aindriú O Laimhín.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
  • Seán O Súilleabháin.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment 96:—To add at the end of Rule 1 the words "and such election shall take place in accordance with the principles of proportional representation."— (Mícheál O hIfearnáin) not moved.

I beg to move:—

Before Rule 3, to insert a new rule as follows:—

3. A board of health shall at its first meeting after it has been constituted and at each annual meeting thereafter elect a chairman from among its members, and may also elect a vice-chairman. At every meeting of the board the chairman or, in his absence, the vice-chairman shall preside over the meeting, and if both chairman and vice-chairman are absent then such member of the board as the members of the board then present shall choose shall preside.

The Schedule as it stands provides that the county council shall elect the chairman. I think it is an unheard of thing that one body should elect a chairman for another committee. The amendment provides that the board of health as appointed by the county council shall at its first meeting select its own chairman or vice-chairman. I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment because it would carry out the intentions, I believe, of the Department, which is to have the county council control the board of health committee. The change is not very great, and if the amendment is accepted giving the right to the board of health to select its own chairman I believe it would lead to greater harmony and smoother working of the board of health.

I will agree to that in principle. I do not think it matters very much. I will have to look into the drafting of the amendment between now and the Report Stage.

On the Minister's undertaking I will withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 98:—In Rule 3, line 31, to delete the word "three" and substitute the word "five."—(Micheál O hIfearnáin) not moved.

Amendment 99 suggested the deletion of Rule 10. It is consequential on the other.

Yes, that is consequential, and it is subject to the ruling made in connection with the other amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I desire to move amendment 100:—

In Rule 13, before the word "Minister," line 24, to insert the words "county council and approved by the."

Now, the board of health is supposed to be a committee of the county council. As the rule stands the Minister is made solely responsible for procedure. The amendment gives the county council, as the parent body, control in this matter. The acceptance of the amendment will not necessarily mean that the Minister will be precluded from issuing model rules. I think the Minister will see the reasonableness of this amendment and will accept it.

I object to accepting this amendment, because it will mean lack of uniformity in those rules and it will mean considerable difficulty in the administration of the Act. If every board of health can make its own rules difficulty will ensue. In practice every such body is consulted, and if there are any necessary small changes to be made in order to keep particular circumstances right on the board of health, they will, as a matter of fact, be made. If I were to allow each board of health to make its own rules, it would mean very great additional trouble in administration and probably additional cost in the way of staff. I would ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.

I think there is more in this than the Minister would appear to suggest. If the board of health, as he has been insisting, is a committee of the county council, and not entirely or almost entirely an autonomous body, if it has any responsibility to the county council, surely the county council can make some sign of its superiority by the fact that it, and not the Minister, shall draw up the rules of procedure for the conduct of its business, so long as the Minister has the right to approve or disapprove? We have another sign in this of the general trend of the whole scheme to make the county council merely an electoral college for appointing the board of health. The board of health then can almost ignore the county council and get in touch with the Minister. It is really to centralise the administration of health services in the Minister. This amendment at least will do something to indicate that that is not the intention of the Ministry or the Oireachtas. The county council in this case will draw up rules of procedure and not the Minister. It may not be of very great intrinsic importance, but it has its symbolic importance.

The objection of the Minister, that it is not going to be uniform with the rules of procedure and the conduct of business on other boards of health in other counties, is again a sign of the desire to have perfect regimentation under the direction of the commander-in-chief in Merrion Street, the Minister being director of local government affairs, and every county council and every board of health doing exactly what is ordered by regulation and rule from the Ministry. Let us at least allow county councils to diverge a little from the regulations set up by the Ministry in a matter of this kind as to how they shall conduct their own business. Surely the county councils can have that liberty, even though we do allow the Minister to hold a check over any extreme action that a county council may take. I would ask the Minister to accept this, at least as a sign that he does not want to rule with a dictatorship over the county councils and boards of health.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl. 27.

  • Seán Buitléir.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Seán O Laidhin.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl

  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceoil.
  • Michael Egan.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Good.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • Michael K. Noonan.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Partholán O Conchubhair.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon D Dúgáin.
  • Aindriú O Laimhín.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Patrick W. Shaw.
Amendment declared lost.

On behalf of Deputy Corish I beg to move:—

101. At the end to add a new rule as follows:—

"A board of health shall present to the county council as soon as practicable after the close of each half-year a summary account of its receipts and expenditure and a report upon the work of the board during the half-year."

This is again an attempt to make it appear at least that the board of health is in fact subordinate to the county council. The county council, under Section 13, is in a certain position in relationship to the board of health. "A board of health shall be subject to such conditions or restrictions in relation to expenditure as the county council may impose with the consent of the Minister. The money required to meet the expenses of a board of health in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under this Act shall be supplied by the county council to the board of health on an annual estimate and demand by the board of health, and shall be estimated, demanded and paid in the same manner as the expenses of a rural district council have been heretofore estimated, demanded, and paid, or in such other manner as may be prescribed." There are certain other requirements respecting finances and the responsibility to the county council but there is nothing in that section or any other section as far as I can see, which imposes any responsibility upon the board of health for presenting any accounts, either financial or otherwise, either accounts of expenditure or reports of working to the county council.

The amendment is designed to require the board of health to present to the county council such reports, both of receipts and expenditure and of the work of the board during the half-year. I hope that that at least would be acceptable to the Minister, or to Deputies behind the Minister.

I consider that this amendment is really unnecessary. It is covered in Section 67. Under sub-section (1) (c) (ii) "the Minister may make rules for carrying this Act into effect, and in particular for regulating the accounts, audits and annual estimates of boards of health." However, I do not consider that there is any objection to accepting the amendment and accordingly I accept it.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed—"That the Second Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

On the Schedule as a whole I would like again to impress upon the Minister the necessity for ensuring that a fair representation shall be given on the board of health to each electoral area. I think that is a very essential feature in connection with the board of health, and we can quite understand that, as the rules have now been drawn, it is possible that the representatives on the board of health might be practically all drawn from one electoral area and the other electoral areas have no representation at all. That, to my mind, is an exceedingly weak feature, and I would ask the Minister to look into that particular point between now and the Report Stage.

I have agreed to insert an amendment to the effect that on the board of health there should be representatives from every electoral area.

Will the Minister see that each electoral area gets its due and fair representation—that is, supposing for argument sake, that there are five electoral areas and that there are ten members on the board of health, that each electoral area shall get two?

I am not satisfied that the representation of the county electoral areas will be sufficient to ensure what is required. It is at least something in the direction, but in a very small degree, and I feel that the regulations are so far from ensuring representation of the districts that the whole plan is spoiled. Because of that defect I am going to ask the House to divide against the Schedule as a whole.

The Minister says that each electoral area will have representation on the county board of health. I quite agree that rural districts will have representation, but if in the county council the majority of the members belong to one party and the members from the town are not members of that party, then that town would be deprived of any representation upon the county board of health, or at least of any voice in its decisions. I think the Minister should undertake to have at least two members of an urban council on the county board of health, plus the members——

Is the Deputy not out of order in making a speech on a subject that has been disposed of already?

I am quite in order in making a speech now. This is a schedule, and the matter is mentioned in the schedule. I am not speaking to the other amendment at all; I am speaking to the Minister and asking him to agree that there shall be some representation from urban districts. I am quite in order in asking that, and I demand that I shall not be called upon by any Minister to sit down when I am in the right and speak for the people I represent. If it is not accepted and inserted in the Bill that urban districts shall have representation on the county board of health to look after the poor and the old people in the towns the Bill is a farce. It will be looked upon as a farce and nothing else. I hope that the Minister does not want to make a laughing stock of the Bill and a sketch of himself by having people saying that the Bill is not worth the paper it is written on. I ask the Minister to consider this point and to make some provision whereby urban districts will be allowed to appoint at least one or two representatives on the board of health.

Might I point out to Deputy Good that even if the Minister would do what he has suggested, that is, to ensure that each electoral area will be represented on the county board of health, it would not necessarily mean that the urban districts would be represented, because most of the electoral areas are represented by four, five or six members of the county council, with perhaps two at most out of that number from an urban district. So that even if the Minister does bring in the amendment Deputy Good speaks about, it is quite possible that you will not have a single representative of an urban district on the county board of health.

And supposing a local authority is very anxious to deal with some minor questions—leave out questions of health and assistance— on libraries, sanitation, wash-houses and the like—surely one ought to ensure that these urban areas, which will be more likely to demand and require such facilities, would be able to voice the views of these localities, and generally advise with intelligence the whole committee, if they had and were ensured representation. The Minister endeavoured to call for a rule against Deputy Lyons on this matter, because an amendment dealing with quite a number of matters had been defeated a short time ago, but Deputy Lyons was only dealing with one item in that considerable amendment and had no right to be called up in that way. I think that the Minister would be well advised, if he wants to make this Bill acceptable to all in the country, to reconsider his whole attitude on the question of the representation and composition of those boards of health, and further, on the sub-committees of the boards of health. I believe that unless he does that he will find that the scheme will be very unpopular—I think it will be unpopular in any case—but it will work badly and will mean a breakdown in the system of local government and a demand for very considerable changes, and perhaps the head of the Minister.

There is just one point that I would like to mention in connection with urban councils. An urban council is contained in a county council electoral area, but while it is in the electoral area it may not be part of the board of health. If an urban council forms a considerable portion of that electoral area the urban council is not part of the board of health. But in the proposal of the Minister, notwithstanding that fact, such an electoral area would get its due representation on the board of health. There is representation where I do not think you are entitled exactly to claim the whole of it, because the whole of it does not come within the jurisdiction of the board of health. There may be other cases which are different. So the question is not quite as easy as it may appear to Deputy Morrissey on the face of it.

I am not very clear as to what Deputy Good means when he speaks of an urban district that does not come within the county board of health. I would like him to develop it a little further.

I am exhausted.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 10.

  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Michael Egan.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Good.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • Michael K. Noonan.
  • Partholán O Conchubhair.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Aindriú O Láimhin.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon O Dúgáin.

Níl

  • Seán Buitléir.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Seán O Laidhin.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
Question declared carried.
Question—"That the Third and Fourth Schedules stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

The following amendment stands in the name of Deputy Davin:—

Before the Fifth Schedule to insert a new Schedule as follows:—

FIFTH SCHEDULE.

Scale for calculating allowances.

Where the officer has served for ten years but less than eleven years—

Ten-sixtieths of his yearly salary and emoluments.

Where the officer has served for eleven or more years but less than forty years—

One-sixtieth of his yearly salary and emoluments for every completed year of service.

Where the officer has served for forty or more years—

Forty-sixtieths of his yearly salary and emoluments.

This amendment, when it was sent in, had connection with an amendment, also in the name of Deputy Davin, but the other amendment was not carried, and, therefore, this amendment at the present stage ought not perhaps to be discussed. The intention, of course, was to provide a minimum as well as a maximum scale, and I think it better not to move this amendment but to defer it until the Fourth Stage.

Amendment not moved.
FIFTH SCHEDULE.
Rule 6.—The sum payable under the preceding rule in respect of each meeting shall be calculated as follows, that is to say, four pence for each mile of the journey from the member's official residence to the place of meeting travelled by railway, and five pence for each mile of such journey travelled otherwise than by railway.

I am not moving amendment 103, but I beg to move amendment 103a, which is:

"In rule 6, line 31, to insert after the word ‘journey' the words ‘to and.'"

I am sure the Minister will have no objection in accepting this innocent amendment from an innocent Deputy. I am sure that if members receive 4d. a mile for travelling expenses the intention is that the 4d. shall cover each mile travelled. The Minister may tell me that that is already inserted when he says 4d. for each mile, but I have put down the amendment to find out whether each mile means each mile to and from the residence of the member.

I cannot accept this amendment. In the rule it does not mean to and from. This allowance is not intended to cover all the expenses of members and it was only put down to cover part of the expenses. This is looked upon as the readiest way of paying a fair contribution towards members' expenses.

Then the Bill should read so that in place of each mile it would mean two miles?

The Bill says for each mile, and I am sure that the Minister is not going to change the Bill. I think when he considers the matter he will see that the 4d. should not apply to one journey only, as otherwise the member might have to get home by shanks' mare.

I think that in view of the fact that we are going to have a reduction in railway fares, the Deputy ought not to press the amendment.

Very well, I will withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move "In Rule 6, line 12, to delete the word ‘five' and substitute the word ‘twelve."' I am sure the Minister will have no hesitation in agreeing with this amendment. Five pence a mile is not enough for travelling expenses. I am sure no one will be able to engage a motor at that rate. If a Deputy is entitled to the full amount of fare for travelling by rail, and four pence a mile might cover the expense of travelling by rail, why should he not also be allowed the full expense for travelling by road? If the Minister is not prepared to accept the figure quoted in the amendment he ought to allow something more reasonable to cover the cost of motor hire for attending meetings, and I would be satisfied. I will not let this amendment go as easily as the last.

I support Deputy Lyons in this amendment. I will not say that the Minister should agree to twelvepence, but I think, in all fairness, he ought to agree to an increase on the five pence per mile, for no one who wants to hire a motor car will get it at that rate for a single journey, not to speak of the return journey. In some counties, like County Cork, members of the county council have to travel 60, 70, or 80 miles to attend the county council meetings.

This is not intended to cover all the expenses of members attending those councils, and until the Act is in operation for some time it will be hard to know how it will work out. It is better to begin low than to begin high, and have to reduce afterwards. It is quite true that fivepence per mile does not cover the expense of a motor car, but it must be taken into consideration that you will often have four or five people in these cars, and oftentimes a member travelling to council meetings will be able to attend to his own business as well as the business of the county council, and then it will be a great help to him.

As to four or five men in a motor car, that may take place in some parts of the country, but is a member living six or seven miles away from any other member, or living away from a station in the heart of the country, expected to run a car to accommodate the people he represents? The Minister should make an advance on the fivepence a mile, and if he does not he will never get through the Bill to-night if I can help it.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 24.

  • Seán Buitleir.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Seán O Laidhin
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.

Níl

  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceoil.
  • Michael Egan.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Good.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • Michael K. Noonan.
  • Partholán O Conchubhair.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Aindriú O Laimhín.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon O Dúgáin.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
Amendment declared lost.

I beg to move amendment 104a:—

In Rule 6, line 33, to insert after the word "railway" the words: "Each member who is entitled to the above-named travelling allowance, shall receive ten shillings per meeting, plus the travelling allowance mentioned in this rule, if he is four hours away from his official residence, owing to the business he has to attend to at such meetings."

In order to expedite the passage of the Bill through the Dáil to-night, I do not intend to force this amendment to a division, but I think the Minister would be wise in accepting it, because I believe its acceptance would mean that a good attendance of members would be ensured at the meetings of public bodies. Members of a public body who live in town are not allowed any travelling expenses, even though they lose their time and their day's pay attending meetings. I put the amendment forward with the idea of securing some recompense for the time they lose.

I do not propose to accept the amendment.

As I know that the Minister is tired out I do not wish to annoy him any further. With the leave of the Dáil I propose to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That the Fifth Schedule stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
The Sixth and Seventh Schedules were agreed to and added to the Bill.
The Preamble and the Title were agreed to and added to the Bill.

There is just one question I would like to ask the Minister. It is, whether rural district councils, before they are finally abolished, will have the power to grant any superannuation to their officials who may not be lucky enough to get transferred to vacancies under the county council.

That is a question that I think the Deputy had better discuss with me outside. There is no possibility of rural councils paying their officials, because these officials automatically become officials under the county council as soon as the district councils are abolished.

The district councils, in whose employment these men have been for years, know more about them than the new body, and hence I think the question I am asking is a fair one.

I have nothing further to say on the matter.

Top
Share