Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Dec 1924

Vol. 9 No. 25

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

SECTION 37.

Mr. BURKE

I move:

In page 20, Section 37, before subsection (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"Where a female pensionable officer in the employment of a local body elects or is compelled by the terms of her appointment to retire on account of her marriage or intended marriage, such local body may with the consent of the Minister, grant to such officer on her retirement or, where her retirement takes place before her marriage, upon her marriage a gratuity not greater than either a sum calculated at the rate of one twelfth of her yearly salary and emoluments for each completed year of her service or than a sum equal to her yearly salary and emoluments whichever of those sums is the lesser.

I agreed to bring forward an amendment of this kind on the Committee Stage or to leave it to a free vote of the House to decide.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I move:

In page 20, Section 37, before subsection (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"A local body may, with the consent of the Minister, grant to a person who devotes the whole of his time to the work of the local body and is remunerated out of moneys provided for the purpose by the local body, and whose employment is terminated for a cause other than misconduct or incapacity, a gratuity not greater than one-sixth of his yearly salary or wages and emoluments for each completed year of his service."

The object of the amendment is to secure in the case of assistants to clerks of unions and district councils and other unestablished officers who have been paid out of moneys provided by the local authority and who have devoted the whole of their time to the work, that local authority should be empowered, with the consent of the Ministry, to grant them a gratuity not greater than one-sixth of the yearly salary or wages. I think this is a fair amendment. Numbers of those officers have had their offices abolished under an amalgamation scheme. I think, with the reservation that they must have devoted the whole of their time to the work and must have been paid out of moneys provided by the local authority for that purpose, the Minister might see his way to accept the amendment.

Mr. BURKE

We debated the principle of this amendment on the Committee Stage, and I pointed out that it was impossible to decide whether one of those officers had given satisfactory service or not. I would undertake to offer Deputy Morrissey in cases where they have been disemployed owing to amalgamation or other causes that steps will be taken to see that they will be re-employed at the earliest possible time.

Mr. MORRISSEY

If the Minister sees his way to assure me that he will do his best to see that those people get employment in the county council, I will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 40 not moved.

Mr. BURKE

I move:—

In page 20, Section 37 (4) (b), line 57, after the word "enactment," to insert the word "and" and after paragraph (b) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

(c) In the case of an officer of a committee or joint committee appointed for the purposes of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, who has become pensionable by reason of his having devoted the whole of his time to the service of one or more such committees or joint committees for a continuous period of not less than ten years, his service shall be deemed to have commenced at the beginning of such continuous period.

The object of this is to ensure that 10 years, or as one may call it, a probationary period in the case of agricultural and technical officers will count for pensionable purposes. I think everyone is in agreement with the principle.

Mr. GOOD

I would not like the last sentence of the Minister to go unchallenged. The question of pensioning is not one to which one takes exception, but the way in which it is proposed to grant this pension is, I think, contrary to the views of most members of the House, and I would like that to be understood on passing a clause of that character.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

I think the principle the Minister said he was in agreement with was that years of service would count.

Mr. GOOD

This clause further establishes the right of that officer to claim on the local authority for his pension, and it gives him a stronger claim on the local authority. We have contended against that principle from the start. I see in the preceding amendment that it was desired to bring in national teachers.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Mr. BURKE

I beg to move Amendment 42, in page 20, Section 37 (4), lines 50 to 54, to delete paragraph (a).

There was considerable discussion upon this in the Committee Stage, and the general trend of that discussion seemed to be that it was not fair to put this restriction upon such officers, and accordingly I have agreed to delete it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. BURKE

I beg to move amendment 43:—

In page 21, before Section 38, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) A local body may grant to any person who was an existing officer— within the meaning of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and ceased to hold office under such local body after the 6th day of December, 1921, and before the passing of this Act and to whom no compensation has been granted by such local body in respect of such cesser, the same compensation as might have been granted to such person if such cesser had taken place after the passing of this Act.

(2) This part of this Act shall apply to the granting of compensation to any person under this section and to such compensation when granted.

The amendment is introduced on an undertaking given to Deputy Nagle to cover the case of an officer who could not be pensioned by the council as a result of being an officer of another authority. It was owing to the particular trend of the law in that case that the principle was agreed to in the Committee Stage.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. BURKE

I beg to move amendment 44: In page 22, Section 43 (1), line 29, after the words "local body," to insert the words "with not less than ten years' service."

I agree that officers with not less than ten years' service should be counted.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. THOMAS O'CONNELL

I beg to move amendment 45. In page 22, Section 43, to delete the words "After the sixth day of December, 1922," in line 29, and the word "thereupon" in line 33, and to insert after the word "who" in line 29 the words "having at least ten years' service as such officer of a local body."

The substance of this amendment was raised on the section during the debate in the Committee Stage. The object of the amendment is to secure that officers who were taken from local authorities and joined the central authority and took service under them before this 6th of December, 1922, should have the same privileges as are accorded to those who joined after the 6th December, 1922. If it is fair and equitable that men, taken from local authorities, because of the good service they rendered, and who were appointed to the central authority, should have their years' service legally counted for pension, I think the Minister must admit that it is only fair that that privilege, or, rather, that right, for that is what it is, should be accorded all round. When I raised this point before the Minister said that this 6th of December date was selected because that was the date on which the Constitution was passed.

That is not a sufficient explanation, to my mind. The idea is either right or wrong to give these men credit for the years they served previous to joining the central authority. If it is right in one case, it is right in all cases. The Government cannot get out of this by saying "They are our own men to whom we are under certain obligations. The others were taken on by a previous Government." That is no good argument to use against this amendment. I understand that the number of people that would be affected by this is very few, and there is no good reason, that I can see, why they should not have the same rights as it is proposed to give under this section to those who were taken on after the 6th December. I hope the Minister will give way on this amendment.

Mr. BURKE

When we debated the principle of this in Committee, I said that I could only consider those officers who came into the service since we had taken over control. Their right to consideration was based on a contractual relation entered into between the Government and the persons in question. An undertaking was given that some arrangement would be come to whereby they could get credit for their service. Officers were taken over previously, to whom no such undertaking was given, and we could not hold ourselves responsible for agreements, or lack of agreements, that existed between such officers and pre-existing Governments.

They have no other right, only the contractual right, and I could not agree to accept Deputy O'Connell's amendment for that reason. As to his statement that it would only probably affect a few officers, that is not correct. It might have very far-reaching consequences if accepted. A great number of officers have come in and it might extend this pension scheme considerably. I would be prepared to extend the date back to 1921, which would still leave it under our control, but would only deal with such cases as came under the Central Government while the Provisional Government or present Government was in power.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I confess I cannot understand the opposition of the Minister. He has based it on the contention that there was only a contractual right. A contractual right, or whatever it was, would depend upon the will of the Dáil, because the Minister had no right to make any contract except subject to what was passed in the Dáil. The Government has no right to make any such contract. I think that if inquiries were made the Minister would find that the number of people who would be affected, even by deleting this date altogether, would be very few. I hope he will endeavour to find out how many would be affected. The men who were taken over, and who are serving the State at the present moment, gave good service, and he will find that in comparison to those others who were lucky enough to be taken over with the new Government, these men will have a certain sense of grievance and that is not going to make them better servants.

I ask him to look into the matter and to find out the number, and if he finds that the number is not as great as he thinks then he might be willing to make this alteration in another place when the Bill goes there. I do hope he will look into the matter and see the number of people who are affected. Of course 1921 is something. I know some men in the service at present. And the ten years' limitation is there too. That will affect them also. Unless they had given ten years' service to the local authority they would not come under my amendment and that will be a further limitation on them.

Mr. BURKE

I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I have already said. I would be willing to change 1922 to 1921, but that is as far as I can go.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I will withdraw the amendment on getting the year 1921 inserted. But I do hope the Minister will look into the matter and see the number affected.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. JOHNSON

On behalf of Deputy Corish, I beg to move:—

In page 23, Section 47, lines 22 to 24, to delete the words "if his period of service under such committee was or shall have been not less than 10 years."

This is intended to deal more particularly with officers of county infirmaries and fever hospitals. I will give a case in point. The functions of the Roscommon County Infirmary—I do not know whether any Deputies from Roscommon are here—were transferred to the county board of health in 1923. Two nurses, who had then respectively eight and four years' service, and were permanent employees of the county infirmary, were transferred to the service of the county board of health, but the Minister gave sanction only to their temporary appointment under the board of health. The nurses have now nine and five years' service, and apparently will be debarred from getting pensions in respect of their county infirmary service because it was less than ten years, and debarred from pensions in respect of their board of health service because the Minister insisted on making their appointments temporary.

The nurses, of course, when they were under the county infirmary committee, thought that they would be pensionable, but the transfer of the infirmary has altered the whole situation. They have no redress, since they cannot even claim pension for their county infirmary service. It would probably meet the situation if the Minister would make these posts permanent and pensionable and allow their infirmary service to be reckoned for pension eventually. In a letter from the Ministry, dated 27th October this year, they stated that there is nothing under the existing law to require the board of health to take into account the service of an officer in the county infirmary or the county fever hospital committees in fixing a superannuation allowance. Now, the transfer from the county infirmary to the board of health was an administrative change, with which the staff had nothing to do. It was not because of the choice of the staff, but of the central authority and the county authority, and, surely that should not operate to penalise the staff. I think that is a reasonable proposition, and I ask the Minister and the Dáil to agree to the amendment.

Mr. BURKE

I am not familiar with this case which Deputy Johnson has put up. It was a case of individual hardship, and if it were sent up to be dealt with by us departmentally, I am sure we would be able to ensure justice. This provision of ten years is necessary in this section in order to prevent the giving of gratuities on a wholesale scale. That was the sole reason for putting it in, and in other respects these officers are just as well off as any other officer under the Bill. I think that Deputy Johnson has stated a case of particular hardship. I have not heard of any similar case before.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am sorry I cannot give details of the case, but I think it is a matter which the Department has been made familiar with through some of its officials because some correspondence has ensued. We say that the section would deprive these persons who had something less than 10 years' service and who are transferred from the county infirmary to the board of health automatically, without their consent or without any real change in their status to their knowledge, of something to which they should be entitled. Yet it appears there is to be a very definite change in their status. They are to be deprived by the fact of that simple transfer—that is to say, the change over from the county infirmary to the county board of health, of benefits accruing owing to the fact that they had served some years in the county infirmary. I do not think the Dáil would agree that that is desirable. I think that it is generally recognised by Deputies that between the county infirmary and the county board of health the nurses' services would more or less be continuous and should be considered as continuous, and therefore they should come under the benefits that were accruing.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

During the Committee Stage the Minister required a good deal of argument to keep me quiet in the matter. I expressed great dissatisfaction with this very long sentence which is extremely hard to analyse. I wanted to be quite sure that the transferred officers would get credit for the service they had done in the county infirmaries before the transference had taken place. The question of the medical officers was in my mind chiefly at the time, and I had not in my mind at the moment the cases of men who had less than ten years' service. I do think the case Deputy Johnson has brought forward requires some consideration.

It would be absolutely and obviously unfair that nurses who had spent six, seven or eight years in the county infirmary and had been transferred and owing to some technicality or irregularity, or something of that sort, by which they only became appointed temporarily in their new offices, should be deprived of the time they spent in the county infirmary, and I think that the Minister might look into it. I would be inclined to support the amendment as it stands if it means that the people, who had served eight or ten years in a county infirmary, after their transference to the county hospital or county homes are to be deprived of that time. That, I think, would be manifestly unfair.

Mr. BURKE

The position of those officers is that under this section we are giving them rights which they had not before. They were not permanent officers; they had no security of tenure and had no pensionable rights. We are conferring pensionable rights on them, the same pensionable rights as other officers under the Bill, with the exception that we are not allowing them pensionable rights in cases of less than ten years' service, in order to prevent the wholesale granting of gratuities, as was the case under the 1919 Act. However, it is now too late for anything to be done in this matter here, but I will be prepared to look into it between now and the time when the Bill is considered in the Seanad. I may be able to add something further to it, but I do not think we can do anything in the matter.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Minister not see the justice of the claim that service with the county health authority, under which is included infirmary committee and other health services, should be reckoned as continuous? If there has been a transfer from one authority to another by virtue of the administrative act of abolishing the infirmary committees, surely that administrative act should not go any way towards penalising the persons in question.

Mr. BURKE

We are not penalising them.

Mr. JOHNSON

That would be the effect of the application of that; unless they had served ten years.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

The point that the Minister has made is that these officers have been made pensionable now, that is to say, they will have a claim from the time that they begin to serve in their new offices, but I think it would be obviously unfair, if they are made pensionable officers now, not to give them credit for the time they have served under similar conditions.

Mr. BURKE

These officers at present are in the same position as a nurse in any private hospital. You might just as well say that we should give pensionable rights to nurses who have spent the same period in St. Vincent's, the Richmond, or the Mater Hospitals. if they were taken over as officers of a county board of health. The officers in these county infirmaries had no pensionable rights, and it is a considerable improvement in their status to transfer them to a body under which they would have pensionable rights. Their status has been considerably improved, and they have lost nothing. If we had not made this change they would have no pensionable rights of any kind. We are improving their status by giving them pensionable rights.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Minister say anything as to the effect of the regulation that the nurses in question are only sanctioned as temporary officers of the board of health, and therefore are debarred from recognition?

Mr. BURKE

I will consider the particular case mentioned by Deputy Johnson. It seems to me to be unusual. If I find there is something in it that I do not see at the moment, I may be able to do something in the Seanad, but it is an exception. I have not met a case like that before.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BURKE

I move:

In page 24, before Section 50, to insert the following new section:—

(1) A county council may from time to time appoint such and so many committees as they think fit for purposes connected with the exercise or performance of any of their powers, duties, and functions which in the opinion of the council would be better or more conveniently regulated or managed by or through a committee.

(2) A committee appointed under this section may be either a general committee empowered to exercise or perform powers, duties, and functions in relation to the whole of the county or a local committee empowered to exercise or perform powers, duties, and functions in relation to a limited portion only of the county.

(3) Every committee appointed under this section shall consist of not less than three members, and may be composed either wholly of members of the council or partly of such members and partly of other persons.

(4) The acts of every committee appointed under this section shall be subject to confirmation by the council save that the council may with the sanction of the Minister empower any particular committee to do any act (including the institution of legal proceedings) within the authority conferred on the committee by the council which the council itself could lawfully do.

(5) The quorum, procedure, and place of meeting of any committee appointed under this section and the area (if any) within which any such committee is to exercise its functions, shall be such as may be appointed by regulations to be made by the council with the approval of the Minister.

(6) Save as is authorised by this section it shall not be lawful for a county council to delegate any of its powers or duties to a committee.

This is an amendment that I am introducing as a result of a discussion on the Committee Stage to the effect that the county councils should have the same power of appointing committees as county boards of health. I mentioned that under existing statutes the county councils have power to appoint these committees, but it was not stated clearly or specifically, and in order to make it clear I have thought it well to introduce this new section.

Mr. GOOD

A point was raised when the Bill was in Committee about each area in the county having representation on the board of health. Will that come up later? The Minister promised to consider it.

Mr. BURKE

Yes, I have an amendment to that effect.

Mr. JOHNSON

Of course another question arises. Perhaps the Minister contemplates local committees being appointed. We are abolishing some of the local councils. We are not ensuring, even in this amendment, that there will be a local committee of the county council. This amendment does not ensure that an urban area which has been absorbed, or a rural district area, will have a local committee, or even that a county electoral area will have one. There is nothing at all to ensure that there will be a local committee of the county council, and I urge again the desirability of making it mandatory that there should be local committees. I think it is more likely, in respect of the county councils and the functions of the county councils as such, that they will appoint local committees under their optional powers than in the case of boards of health.

I think the interests would be somewhat different, and, in practice, local committees for county council functions will be more likely to be appointed. But I would like it to be made mandatory. I wish to point out that this section does not ensure that there will be local committees in respect of road administration, or some of the other functions under this section. I think it is an omission and a fault, and I would like to know whether the Minister is prepared now to introduce an amendment to ensure that local committees shall be appointed.

Mr. GOREY

This would take it absolutely out of the power of county boards of health or county councils to decide this matter for themselves. Surely, if there were any virtue in the suggestion that Deputy Johnson makes it would appeal to the county council. I cannot understand that local recommendations, coming from an urban district or a district council district, or being put up at the board of health or the county council, would not have due consideration and would not take effect. But to say "shall" instead of "may" is going a little too far; the word "may" is getting us as far as we want to get. If the position of a county council is such that it does not demand these sub-committees the county council can do without them. I think that local Parliaments such as these, elected by the people, are the best authorities to deal with this question, and I should leave them absolute discretion to set up these committees or not. I think that the Minister would be right to retain the principle that "may" is quite sufficient.

Mr. BURKE

Deputy Gorey takes up the right attitude on this matter. I am not anxious to enforce my views on county councils unless it is absolutely necessary, and if these bodies are competent to take up the very great responsibilities that will be thrown upon them by this Bill, making them practically local Parliaments, they should certainly be competent to decide what kind of committees they will appoint, whether they will be local or general, or what kind of local or general committees they should be. Accordingly, I would be very slow to stereotype any particular form of committees to make them compulsory.

New section put and agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move:—

In page 24, before Section 50, to insert a new section as follows:—

"Article 36 of the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, shall be construed so that a county council may appoint committees with powers in relation to either the whole of the functional area of the council or such smaller areas as the council may think expedient."

This amendment was put down having regard to the probable attitude of the Minister in his refusal to insert mandatory provisions, and it still allows the councils discretion; it is still optional. Its effect is rather drawing attention to the, shall I say, suggestion that there should be local committees appointed by the council under this Article 36 of Local Government Order, 1898.

The section that has just been passed deals with quorum, procedure and the place of meetings of committees. Article 36 does not make any reference to the Minister at all. It leaves to the county council the option of making regulations regarding the procedure of these committees. That is not, perhaps, a very important matter, but it indicates a difference in point of view as to the responsibilities of councils. If you are going to give a council the discretion that Deputy Gorey spoke of, at least you should trust it in regard to the making of rules of procedure, quorum, etc., without bringing the Minister in at all.

Mr. BURKE

I really do not think there is very much between us on these two amendments with the exception of the fact that mine has been passed through the draftsman's hands and Deputy Johnson's has not. I do not know what that functionary would do if the amendment came before him. The point was raised about making it necessary for the committee appointed by the council to receive the sanction of the Minister. If the Deputy will look at sub-section (4) of my amendment he will see that matter explained. It is only in particular cases where they set up Committees that the sanction of the Minister is required. It probably gives much wider powers than Deputy Johnson's, and I think he ought to agree to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

I agree.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BURKE

I move amendment 49, which reads:—

"In page 24, Section 51, to delete sub-section (1)."

There was considerable discussion on this section on the Committee Stage. The object was to ensure that councillors who are disqualified from sitting on county councils should not continue to act. From the debate that ensued, and from consultations we had afterwards, we decided that this sub-section would be ineffective, and accordingly I move its deletion. The next amendment will give me adequate powers for dealing with this situation, and they will be more effective than the powers in this sub-section.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. BURKE

I beg to move:—

In page 25, Section 51, to insert after sub-section (3) a new sub-section as follows:—

"(4) An offence under this section may be prosecuted by or at the suit of the Minister."

This will do effectively what the other sub-section would not be able to make effective. The prosecution by the Minister will make the section effective.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. BURKE

I beg to move:—

In page 25, Section 54, after sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(3) For the purposes of this section a member shall not be deemed to have attended a meeting unless he shall have been present at such meeting for at least three hours, or where such meeting was held only for a period less than three hours, during the whole of such period."

This amendment I have introduced as a result of what was proposed by Deputy Baxter on the Committee Stage. I think Deputy Johnson and Deputy Gorey and several other Deputies hope for an amendment of this kind. It is in order to meet their wishes that I submit it.

Mr. GOOD

Does that apply to meetings of the urban council as well as meetings of the county council?

Mr. BURKE

No.

Mr. CORISH

It touches on the question of travelling expenses.

Mr. GOOD

I thought it was only in cases where travelling expenses were involved that a provision of this kind would be necessary. If we take urban authorities, where there will be no question at all of expenses, a member will not get any credit for attendance except he is there for a least a period of three hours. In that case I am afraid we will have some difficulty in getting representatives to attend, seeing that they must be there for three hours.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

Have shorter meetings.

Mr. GOOD

I suggest this penal clause should only apply to meetings of the county council and not to the urban council.

Mr. BURKE

It only applies to county councils and boards of health.

Mr. GOOD

Will the Minister see that that is made quite clear? I evidently read it wrongly.

Mr. BURKE

I will.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Deputy explain why he wants to make the distinction?

Mr. GOOD

I thought I had made that clear. There was a payment in one case and there was no payment in the other case. That makes all the difference, I think.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Deputy want to encourage the practice which was touched upon at a previous meeting? That practice was that members would drop in to have their names recorded as being present, and then they would go to another meeting. There may be no penalty and no loss of expenses involved in the case of urban councils; but it is a very undesirable practice to insert in any Act which will be effective, that a member can go into a meeting, stay a couple of minutes to find out whether there is anything on, or remain while an appointment is being made, and then go away. If that is to be the practice to be condoned by the Deputy, I think we ought to take action of another kind. We ought to include urban councils if there is any method of suggesting that a person is present at that meeting and should not be recorded as being present unless he sits there during the whole of the meeting, or for three hours.

Mr. GOOD

I think in the absence of experience of either urban or county council meetings, the Deputy does not exactly see the point the Dáil had in mind when these recommendations were made in Committee. In one case members have to come a considerable distance. In the past there has been a difficulty on county councils owing to the trouble in getting a quorum. As far as my experience goes, the same difficulty has not occurred on urban councils. There are Deputies on the same benches with Deputy Johnson who have had considerable experience on urban councils; possibly they would express their opinions. My experience is there was no difficulty on urban councils and therefore there is no necessity for this legislation applying to them.

Mr. JOHNSON

I recognise that.

Mr. GOREY

This new clause was introduced to meet the wishes of Deputy Baxter, who put forward an amendment on our behalf. I think this new clause goes a good way. It was drafted to meet the case where councillors are paid for their attendance to cover their expenses, etc. I thought also it included urban councils, but it does not.

Mr. BURKE

It says "only for the purpose of this section," and the section refers only to where they are paid.

Mr. GOREY

Three hours looks a little excessive, but seeing that we raised the question, I do not think we have very much right to grumble now, and we had better accept it.

Mr. CORISH

I want to say that I agree with Deputy Good in the argument he put forward as far as the urban councils are concerned. It would carry the implication that urban councillors are to be paid if it is not made clear. I would like to ask the Minister what is the position of the men who are members of a mental hospital committee.

Mr. BURKE

They are included.

Mr. GOREY

You can make your mind easy. It is all right, Deputy Corish.

Mr. JOHNSON

The only point I make in this matter is that I realise that while this amendment to the section was brought in only to cover the case of a person seeking expenses, Deputy Good rather suggested that in other cases, where there are no expenses involved and only political credit and administrative credit to the individual are in question, it is quite a legitimate thing for the elected member for the constituency to attend for a minute or two, get his name on the record, and go away, so that he could, at the end of the year, point to the number of meetings he had attended. I agree that it does not come into this. I rise to point out that Deputy Good was making the point where finance was involved, but he was prepared to condone a similar offence where it was the administrative record of the councillor was in question.

Mr. GOOD

There was no offence proved in the other case. That is where I take exception to Deputy Johnson's remarks.

Mr. GOREY

This clause was introduced to deal with a specific matter— where a member of a council was getting paid a salary for attendance. We want to guard against the position where a man came into a meeting from a distance for the purpose of getting paid expenses and would get paid after a couple of minutes attendance, and then go away. This amendment was suggested to guard against that.

Mr. LYONS

I refer the Dáil to Section 24, sub-section (2), paragraph 8. I would like to know what would the position be in the case of members of a county council or board of health or other members of a committee of a county council who had to travel to a meeting but owing to a quorum not turning up, could not transact the business of the meeting. According to this amendment they are not entitled to get their expenses. I think when the matter was discussed here on the last occasion it was agreed that when the members of a county council or commitee thereof attended, but through want of a quorum a meeting could not be held, those members should get credit for their attendance. I would like to know if this amendment if passed would have the effect of negativing that? Last week there were several amendments moved to the effect that these committees should be paid the same as the elected bodies. Now, as I read this amendment, there is no member of these bodies except a member of the county council entitled to get paid this salary, as Deputy Gorey calls it.

Mr. GOREY

If the Deputy reads the amendment he will see that it applies to any committee appointed by the county council.

Mr. LYONS

If there is not a quorum present will these members be entitled to be paid?

Mr. BURKE

Read the Bill.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

I would like to direct Deputy Lyons' attention to the Fifth Schedule of the Bill, where it is definitely pointed out that no contribution would be paid for expenses where the member lives within five miles of the meeting place. That would automatically exclude urban councils.

Amendment put, and agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON

I beg to move the following amendment:—

In page 26, Section 56, to add a new sub-section as follows:—

"(6) The powers of a library authority under the Public Libraries (Ireland) Acts, 1855 to 1920, shall include power to incur expenditure out of the library rate on the provision of public lectures and exhibitions (whether admission to such lectures or exhibitions is free or subject to such charges and conditions as the library authority may determine) and libraries in schools."

This is a serious amendment. There was a discussion on it at the Committee Stage, and it was supported by all sides in the Dáil, and I think the Minister was inclined to give it support but that he could not screw his courage to the sticking point at the moment. We were hopeful that he would have been able to consult with his advisers and the library authorities in respect of the power which it was proposed to give to the local authority to spend money out of the library rate for the provision of lectures and to provide libraries for schools. The proposition was very generally supported from all sides. We pointed out that it did not involve any increase in the library rate. At present library committees are debarred from spending any of that money on the provision of a school library or on the provision of a lecture, but it would be very beneficial in assisting in working a library and making the library much more valuable, in fact multiplying the value of the library by several points. I hope the Minister has been able to give friendly and sympathetic consideration to this amendment. It is supported by the library committees in Limerick, Cork, Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire, Rathmines, and several other places where they have formally considered it and passed a resolution in its favour. I hope the Minister will give assent to the proposed amendment and so avoid any further discussion.

Mr. GOOD

I would like to support Deputy Johnson in this amendment. When the matter was under discussion before, when the Bill was going through Committee, I think there were expressions of opinion from all sections of the Dáil that some clause such as this should be embodied in the Bill. I then took the opportunity of pointing out that this was one of the most reasonable and useful developments in connection with library work, and I hope that the Minister will see his way to enable our libraries here to take advantage of this very necessary and useful provision.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

I want to add a word in regard to that portion which enables the library committee to give some help towards the provision of school libraries. The Education Authorities for many years have been urging the necessity for establishing libraries in connection with schools. All who are in touch with educational matters will agree that it is a great advantage to have those school libraries. Up to the present few such exist, because there are no funds on which to draw, except voluntary funds or what can be got locally in the parish.

I think, as Deputy Johnson said, this is a question that hardly needs any argument. It only seeks to give committees power to assist in the establishment of school libraries if they are so minded, within their present rate.

Major COOPER

I raised this matter during the Committee Stage and, since then, I have taken the opportunity of studying the Public Libraries (Ireland) Acts, 1885 to 1920. They are very numerous. It appears that about every ten years somebody in the Chief Secretary's office said "We need a new Libraries Act," and one was brought in. So far as I can see, there is always one saving clause in these Acts, and that is that power is reserved to the Local Government Board—as it was then—to make rules in connection with the matter. In Committee, the Minister expressed a fear that we might be going too fast; that in districts where there were rural libraries which had comparatively few books, the authorities controlling those libraries might spend their money on lectures instead of getting new books. I think that Deputy Johnson's quotation of the Public Libraries Acts would limit that damage —that the Minister, as representing the now defunct Local Government Board, would be able by rule to control that. He might make a rule prohibiting any library having less than 1,000 or 2,000 books from promoting those lectures. That being so, I think there is a safeguard. This amendment gives power to Cork, Limerick and other such centres to exercise a faculty which does help to promote the usefulness of the library.

I would also like to support Deputy O'Connell in his point regarding school libraries. There is no doubt that a very valuable part of one's education is not that which is taught but that which he himself picks up. School libraries enable boys and girls in the formative period of their lives to obtain knowledge which they might not otherwise acquire. We all learn in many and diverse ways. I met one Deputy who actually expressed regret that he was not on a Private Bill Committee. I asked why. He said: "Look at the education it is. You would learn more from those experts than you would from reading a hundred books." I think that was a sane and sensible point of view, but he would probably study more wisely——

Mr. CORISH

Are you on the Selection Committee?

Major COOPER

I am one of the people who put people on Private Bill Committees. Deputy Magennis, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and myself put people on Private Bill Committees. I think the Deputy was mistaken in thinking that he would really have learned more at the Private Bill Committee than from a hundred books, because from the books he would have learned every side of the question and not merely the side dealt with by the experts. If any boy at school had time to read a hundred books, it would be a very valuable increment to his education. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.

Mr. CONLAN

I am in full sympathy with the objects which Deputy Johnson has in bringing forward this amendment, but I would suggest that the provision of libraries for schools would come rather within the province of the Minister for Education.

Mr. BURKE

In the discussion of this matter on Committee Stage, I was rather slow to accept an amendment of this kind, but my chief objections have been overcome, as Deputy Cooper suggested, by quoting those particular Acts, which ensure that we shall have a certain amount of supervisory authority or power over those libraries. Deputy Johnson has introduced the word "exhibitions" into the amendment. It is a word that might otherwise have frightened me. Deputy Conlan referred to the fact, on Committee Stage, that a number of those libraries consisted mainly of light literature. I might be very much afraid that those "exhibitions" would consist mainly of light exhibitions—boxing exhibitions, circuses and various exhibitions of that sort, with, perhaps, musical comedy added.

With the provision I have alluded to, I can accept the amendment. It may, however, be curtailed somewhat in the Seanad.

Mr. JOHNSON

I take it the Minister is accepting the amendment. The reference to "exhibitions" in connection with lectures and libraries explains itself fairly well. As to the powers of the Minister in the matter, it was intended from the beginning to retain in his hands those powers. Exhibitions may be most valuable in connection with lectures, as illustrating books. One thing fits in with the other, and it is necessary to leave more than the mere lecture within the power of the committee. I am thankful to the Minister for accepting this amendment. I am sure he will find that it will be very valuable and that it will be gladly availed of.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move amendment 53:—

In page 26, before Section 57, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) If the council of any county, county borough or urban district are of opinion that there is a demand for allotments for the labouring population in their area, and that such allotments cannot be obtained at a reasonable rent and on reasonable conditions by voluntary arrangement between the owners of land suitable for such allotments and the applicants for them, the council may provide a sufficient number of allotments and shall let such allotments to persons belonging to the labouring population resident in their area and desiring to take them.

(2) The power of the council to provide allotments under this section shall not include the power to provide allotments exceeding one acre in extent.

(3) The council may, for the purpose of providing allotments, by agreement or otherwise purchase or take on lease land whether situate within or without their area, and may improve any land acquired by them, and adapt the same for letting in allotments as they think fit.

(4) The rents of the allotments shall be fixed at an amount not less than such as may reasonably be expected to ensure the council from loss, but in calculating such loss any expenses incurred in an unsuccessful attempt to acquire land for allotments shall be excluded, and subject as aforesaid such rents may be from time to time charged as are reasonable having regard to the agricultural value of the land: Provided that if the Minister is satisfied that the rents are to be charged for any allotments if calculated in the manner aforesaid would be greater than the persons for whom the allotments are required could be reasonably expected to pay, and that the need for the provision of such allotments is urgent, he may authorise the council to fix and charge such lower rents as he may think expedient.

(5) For the purpose of this section the provision of allotments shall be deemed to include the provision of land for common pasturage.

This amendment deals with a subject not brought forward on the last occasion with regard to the provision of allotments. It is not the same as the last amendment, inasmuch as the last was mandatory and this is permissive. It allows the county council or a county borough council or an urban district council where they see a demand for allotments, and that such allotments cannot be obtained at a reasonable rent by voluntary arrangement with the owners of the land, to provide a sufficient number of allotments, letting them to persons belonging to the working-class population resident in their area and desiring to take them. The problem of the provision of allotments has been very insistent in some parts of the country during the past few months. I have had from a number of towns representations regarding the closing down of arrangements that had been going on voluntarily for the past twelve months. These arrangements were entered into owing to the cessation of the schemes that had been in force during the war. Groups of men in different parts had continued the allotment scheme by entering into voluntary arrangement with the proprietors of land in their districts.

Several cases of the kind around Dublin have been brought to my notice. Cases of the same kind from Limerick, Sligo and other towns have also been brought to my notice. It is quite evident that there is a demand in many parts of the country for the provision of allotments, and that it is becoming difficult, owing to a variety of causes, for groups of workmen to make terms with the local landowners. We have, for instance, cases in and around Dublin where cattle dealers are claiming the re-possession—shall I call it?—of their fields, which have hitherto, for some time, been used as allotment ground. They say the fields are more valuable to them as accommodation land for cattle, and the result is that allotment holders are being deprived of their allotments. Similar cases, not quite in the same position, where people want their land for grazing—grazing being possibly more profitable than food production—have been brought to my notice. I think, as a matter of social importance, it is very desirable to encourage this allotment holding. The persons who desire to do this work are obviously of the type that ought to be encouraged. They desire to spend their spare time in cultivating the soil and in growing vegetables for their homes.

Occasionally, some of the produce from these allotments is sold, but in the main the allotments are utilised for the growing of potatoes and vegetables of different varieties for home consumption. Cases have been brought to my notice, and proof shown to me in full detail, where men who have been continuously unemployed for months have only been able to keep their families provided for by the fact that they had these allotments. They have been able to feed their families and keep them from hunger by the fact that they had these allotments. Some of them were fearful—I do not know how far the fear has been removed—that if their unemployment were to continue and they were to be deprived of their allotments they would not know how they would be able to provide for their families of six, seven or eight children in regard to food supplies. The amendment proposes to give councils an optional but not a mandatory power with regard to these allotments. I hope that the Minister will give friendly support to the amendment, and that with the support of the Dáil it shall be carried.

Mr. BURKE

An amendment almost in the same terms to this one was moved on the Committee Stage of the Bill. My reasons for objecting to the amendment then were the same as at the present time. I am in favour of allotments myself. I believe that they are beneficial from the point of view of being a great help to struggling people in time of shortage like the present and because they develop a good civic and social spirit. I am altogether in sympathy with the idea that prompted the moving of the amendment, but, as I mentioned before it could not be given effect to in this particular way. The Minister for Agriculture had a Bill, with the drafting of which I had something to do, before him last year. It was a Bill that ran into sixteen or seventeen sections, in addition to several schedules. It is necessary to have a big and comprehensive Bill to deal with this matter, and for that reason alone it would be impossible to give effect to it by inserting it in a Bill in this way.

It is a matter that the Minister for Agriculture has under his consideration. It does not fall within my bailiwick only in so far as every Bill can be dragged in under Local Government in one shape or another. It was the intention of the Minister for Agriculture to bring in such a Bill, and I understand he would have brought it in only that at the time there seemed to be no demand for allotments all through the city. The general tendency was to drop the allotments that were in being, and I understand that in many cases it was impossible to get the moderate rent charged for them. For that reason the Minister did not consider it so urgent at the time, and legislation of a more pressing kind kept him from introducing it. I am sure if Deputy Johnson brings to bear on the Minister for Agriculture the weight of his eloquence that probably he would be able to get him to bring in such a measure early next year.

Mr. JOHNSON

Talking about allotments, one would not say "live horse and get grass," but one might say "live horse and get carrots." I think it would be very desirable if we could get this amendment inserted in the Bill. If it is faulty in any way there would be the more reason then for the Minister for Agriculture, under the stimulus of the Minister for Local Government, to bring in an amending Bill, or, rather, a more comprehensive Bill, or a section in a Bill to repeal this particular section in the Local Government Bill. If, perchance, the Bill of the Minister for Agriculture were to get precedence over this, then it would be a simple matter to drop this section before it is completed. I do not think, however, that the Minister has given any good reason why this amendment, giving the councils certain powers, is going to interfere with the work of his Department. There is no particular regulation required, and there is no very great responsibility thrown upon his Department. If it is going to accomplish the purpose which we are all agreed should be fulfilled, then let us introduce it and pass it into this Bill. I ask the Dáil to agree with that view.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided. Tá, 13; Níl, 26.

Tá

• John Conlan.
• David Hall.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
• Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
• Patrick McKenna.
• Ailfrid O Broin.
• Tomás O Conaill.
• Líam O Daimhín.
• Donchadha O Guaire.
• Seán O Laidhín.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Tadhg O Murchadha.

Níl

• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• Séamus de Búrca.
• Sir James Craig.
• Maighréad Ni Choileáin Bean Ui Dhrisceóil.
• Michael J. Egan.
• John Good.
• John Hennigan.
• Connor Hogan.
• Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
• Patrick McGilligan.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Líam Mag Aonghusa.
• Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
• Martin M. Nally.
• John T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Seán O Bruadair. Conchubhar O Conghaile.
• Séamus N. O Dóláin.
• Peadar O Dubhghaill.
• Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
• Aindriú O Laimhín.
• Seámus O Leadáin.
• Risteárd O Maolchatha.
• Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
• Seán Priomhdhail.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. BURKE

There are several amendments here which have been agreed upon. Amendment 54 is an amendment which I introduced at the request of Deputy Colohan, and the principle of it was agreed on in Committee. Amendment 55 is an amendment introduced by Deputy Colohan to which I am agreeing. I think it was, in effect, agreed to by the House during the Committee Stage. Amendment 56 is introduced to give effect to a point raised by Deputy Everett and which was agreed upon in Committee. Amendment 59 is consequential on it. The remaining two amendments are proposed by Deputy Heffernan, who is not here, but I agreed with the Deputy to give an altered version of one of these amendments, and it is the only one about which, I think, there will be any dispute. If the Deputies agree, we could, therefore, take amendments 54, 55, 56 and 59 and pass them now by agreement and take the other amendments, Nos. 57 and 58, later.

The following amendments, Nos. 54, 55, 56 and 59 were then put and agreed to:—

In page 29, before section 63, to insert a new section as follows:—

It shall not be lawful for the council of any county to resolve that an annual sum be raised off such county and paid as a salary to the surgeon of the infirmary or infirmaries thereof under the provision of section 86 of the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836, as adapted by the Local Government (Adaptation of Irish Enactments) Order, 1899, without the consent of the Minister, and so much of the said section 86 as imposes a limit on the amount which may be so raised and paid shall cease to have effect.—Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Puiblí.

In page 30, before section 65, to insert a new section as follows:—

"If an officer of a rural district council holds more than one office under that council or jointly under that council and another local body, and is removed from the office from which he derives the greater part of his income in consequence of changes effected by or under this Act, he shall be entitled to relinquish all the said offices and to receive compensation on the same terms and conditions as if all his offices had been abolished."—Aodh O Culacháin.

In page 31, Second Schedule, Rule 1, lines 14 and 15, to delete the words "a chairman and nine others" and to insert in lieu thereof the word "ten."—Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí.

In page 32, Second Schedule, to delete Rules 9 and 10 and substitute three new rules as follows:—

"9. The first meeting of a board of health after its election shall be an annual meeting, and an annual meeting shall be held in each subsequent year within one month after the anniversary of such election.

"10. At every annual meeting of a board of health the board shall elect a chairman, and may elect a vice-chairman, from amongst its members, who shall hold office until after the next annual meeting of the board.

"11. At every meeting of a board of health the chairman, if present, shall be chairman of the meeting. If the chairman is absent the vice-chairman shall be chairman of the meeting. If the chairman is absent and either no vice-chairman has been elected, or the vice-chairman is absent, such member of the board as the members then present shall choose shall be chairman of the meeting."—Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

On behalf of Deputy Heffernan, I move the following amendment:—

In page 31, Second Schedule, to add at the end of Rule 1, the words "and such election shall take place in accordance with the principles of proportional representation."

The amendment speaks very well for itself. Its object is to endeavour to put into operation the principle of proportional representation in connection with the election on the county board of health of members of the county council so as to give every party in the county council elected by the people an opportunity for getting their due representation on the board of health. As proportional representation has been accepted in practically every phase of our representative life I see no reason why it should be refused in this instance.

Mr. BURKE

I agree to the amendment in an altered form, if Deputy Heffernan would accept it. It gives effect to proportional representation as regards area but not as regards party. I was not able to combine the two, and Deputy Heffernan agreed that it was better to have area representation than party representation.

Mr. GOREY

Proportional representation of that kind would not meet our view.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

It does not meet our view.

Mr. GOREY

I understand it does not meet anybody's view.

Mr. BURKE

Then I move to report progress.