Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 1931

Vol. 39 No. 1

Private Deputies' Business. - Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1931.

I understand agreement has been reached between Deputies who have business which would come on at this time to allow No. 20 to be taken first. That motion is necessarily confined as to time. The motion is opposed.

I do not want to get out of order by going into the purpose of the Private Bill which I ask leave to introduce. I would like to say to the House that the Bill is a non-contentious measure, purely to alter a sub-section of an already existing Act, to remedy a defect which was in that Act, and which was not noticed when it was going through the House, a defect, furthermore, which the Minister has not recognised as yet. It deals with the administration of poor law relief in the City of Dublin. Under the Local Government Act of 1931 the number of the Dublin Union Committee was fixed at five, of which the quorum was to be three. The Minister knows himself, a deputation having waited on him from the Dublin Corporation, that this number is not large enough and will have to be increased in order to bring about efficiency in the administration of poor relief. The Minister knows, I am sure, that difficulty has been experienced on several occasions to get a quorum. It is anticipated, now that the holiday season has started, that greater difficulties will arise. The chairman of that body has already intimated that she is going on her holidays. Other members may also be going on holidays or, if a member falls sick, there is a danger of the whole administration of poor relief breaking down owing to the lack of a quorum. In the Private Bill which I introduced, the only possible element of contention was in the exact number of the Committee. So far as I am concerned, I am not out to stick rigidly to the number mentioned in the Bill. If the House thought a lesser number or a greater number would bring about greater efficiency I would accept that number. What I cannot understand is what is at the back of the Minister's mind in opposing the Bill.

On a point of order, is the Deputy proposing to make a speech, or is he making a statement with regard to this Bill?

The Deputy is supposed to be making an explanatory statement in order to induce the House to give him leave to introduce the Bill, and in order to have the Bill printed and circulated. If the Deputy stated the difficulty rather than the solution it would be better.

It has been stated outside that the reason the Minister does not want to accept the Bill is that if other members got appointed on the Committee they would get votes.

What the Minister is opposing is the proposal that the Deputy's Bill should be printed and circulated.

There is nothing contentious in the Bill. It is purely designed to bring about an increased number on the Dublin Union Committee to ensure that there will be a quorum and an efficient administration. As a matter of fact, the Minister knows that when the Dublin Union Committee meet, as they do every Wednesday, it is a full day's work for them. All the corporators give their services free. They do not even get car fare. Amongst the members is a representative of the Labour Party, who, I feel, should not be called upon to give a full day, as he has to do, in order to get through the work.

Is the Deputy airing his views on a multitude of subjects, or making a statement in regard to his Bill?

The Deputy is making the kind of speech he might make on Second Reading.

I am trying to show that it is impossible in the interests of the efficient administration of Poor Law relief to have it done with the number of Commissioners sanctioned in the Local Government Act of 1931. If I am precluded from amplifying what I say as to the effect, I leave it at that.

The Deputy might state the difficulty and leave aside the solution.

The solution I propose would be to increase the number. I think the House will agree that a greater number than five is essential. I hope the House will give leave to have the Bill introduced.

The Standing Order prescribes that the Deputy giving notice shall move for leave to introduce the Bill. It goes on to say—"If such motion be opposed, the Ceann Comhairle, after permitting an explanatory statement from the Deputy who moves"—we have heard that—"and a statement from a Deputy who opposes the motion, may, if he thinks fit, put the question thereon." I am proposing to hear the Minister. I take it that Deputy Davin is not opposing.

I propose to support the demand for the introduction of a Private Member's Bill and to give reasons for that.

I am in the position that I have heard the explanatory statement from the Deputy who moves, and now I am going to hear a statement from the Deputy who opposes the motion. Then if I think fit I may put the motion. I think I will think fit. I am bound to hear a statement from a Deputy who opposes the motion.

Deputy Davin on the subject could not do himself justice if he pursued the lines he was pursuing. I oppose the introduction of a Bill by Deputy Briscoe here for the purpose of increasing the number of members of the Dublin Union Committee, and I do so for these reasons. At a time when the Dublin Union Committee is in communication with the Minister for Local Government with regard to their position, and before they have come to any conclusion themselves as to what size of a Committee could most satisfactorily deal with the business of the Dublin Union, Deputy Briscoe introduces a Bill to deal with the matter.

On a point of order. Deputies, with the exception of Deputy Briscoe and the Minister, have no information of any kind regarding the contents of the Bill, and the only thing which the Minister is called upon to answer is to give the reason why he refuses to give a Private Member leave to introduce a Bill and to have it circulated.

Not at all. The Deputy wants to preclude the Minister from dealing with this matter, and compel him to deal with the general matter of the rights of Private Members to introduce a Bill.

The only question that should be considered now is the right of Private Members to introduce a Bill, and, on the opposition side, the reasons for refusing to give such concessions.

No, what is being considered now is whether Deputy Briscoe, having made an explanatory statement as to what he wants to do, should be allowed to do it.

Is the Minister in order in saying that his reason for not accepting the Bill is because I introduced it here while he was in negotiations with certain parties?

It is not correct to say that the Deputy is introducing the Bill but that he proposes to introduce it.

That is a point of accuracy rather than a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle carefully precluded me from saying anything about the Bill.

Then the Deputy has been very successful in evading that ruling.

If the facts which I put forward were deemed to be irrelevant how can the Minister's hearsay evidence as to what he thought I thought be relevant?

Is it not customary to give every Bill a first reading?

In ninety-nine per cent. of the cases they get a first reading.

Standing Order 82 provides special machinery whereby the first reading of a Bill may be opposed. It is a pretty rare happening. It has happened that Government Bills have been opposed. It happened last week on the Juries Protection Bill. It has happened on occasions to Private Deputies Bills. The idea of the Standing Order is that if opposition to the introduction of a Bill is made, the proceedings shall be resolved quickly. What seems to be happening this evening is that points of order are unduly protracting the proceedings.

I will reduce my objections in this case to general grounds, such as Deputy Davin, apparently, would like to have done. Where a local body is discussing with the Minister for Local Government any aspect of the better organisation of their business, and where negotiations and discussions are proceeding, I would oppose the first reading of any Bill dealing with that matter brought in by any Deputy, unless I thought that its introduction was likely to help in the matter under discussion. I cannot see discussions going on in a reasonable and bona fide way between any local bodies and the Minister for Local Government that could be helped in any way by the introduction of a Bill by a private member. That is precisely what Deputy Briscoe is proceeding to do.

On a point of order, has the Minister received a copy of the Bill?

Is that a point of order?

I do not know who received a copy of the Bill.

How do you know what is in it?

I do not care what is in it.

I will answer this question. The Minister has not said a word about what is in the Bill. I do not know if the Minister has seen the Bill, but a copy has been sent to the Minister's Department. The Minister may not have read it. We had a Private Deputies Bill to-day signed by two Deputies, but we have not yet sent it to any Department. We do not know to what Department to send it.

Was it sent to the Minister or his Department?

That is too subtle for the Ceann Comhairle. It was sent to the Minister's Private Secretary or to the head of the Minister's Department.

The Minister stated this morning that he had seen it, but now he says he has not.

I said it was so long since it was introduced that I do not know whether I saw it or not.

What about your collaboration with the President?

My discussions in this matter have been with the Dublin Union Committee. I oppose the Bill because it is brought in by a Private Deputy, who has butted in on a private discussion between the local body and the Minister.

Are we to take it——

No, I am going to put the question.

Question put.
The Dáil divided:—Tá, 50: Níl, 65.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Broderick, Henry.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carney, Frank.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Crowley, James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Kelly, Patrick Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Leonard, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, John F.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • Wolfe, George.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Briscoe and P. Hogan (Clare). Níl: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle.
Question declared lost.
Top
Share