Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Jun 1931

Vol. 39 No. 5

Local Government Bill, 1931—Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (General Mulcahy)

I move:—

To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

"(2) Where the person holding a particular office in or under a local authority is by law a member of any other body by virtue of his holding such office, such person shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be a member of such body nominated by such local authority."

Take, for instance, the Dean's Grange Burial Board, which is a body set up under a provisional order, and the Chairman of the Borough Council of Dun Laoghaire and the Chairman of the Board of Health, Co. Dublin, are ex officio members of that body. The proposal, then, is to extend the meaning of the words "persons nominated by a local authority to a subsidiary or other body," to include those persons on that local body who, because of their having been elected to some office on that body, are members of a subsidiary or other body.

Mr. Briscoe

I do not quite get the explanation of that from the Minister. Does that in any way affect the nominations by a local authority of persons who are not elected representatives to take office on a subsidiary body?

General Mulcahy

No. Take the Dean's Grange Burial Board. It consists of certain persons. There may be some persons nominated by the Dun Laoghaire Borough Council. The Chairman of the Borough Council is nominated an ex officio member of the Board. In the same way there are members of the county boards of health nominated members of the Board. The Chairman, without being nominated, is ex officio a member, and the amendment is to include ex officio members of the particular local body as they have been nominated by that body.

Mr. Briscoe

Does not that seem to be superfluous, or is there something else behind it? Is not each person who has ex officio representation on some other body under the Act or the order a member of the particular body? Is not that already understood and quite clear from the original Act?

General Mulcahy

It is not already understood.

Mr. Flinn

This is another Bill to remove doubts.

General Mulcahy

It is to remove doubts.

Mr. Briscoe

Do I take it they will be able to suppress the nominated persons on the subsidiary body?

General Mulcahy

The whole intention of this Bill is that when the Minister dissolves a body he ought to be able effectively to do whatever may be necessary to carry on the work of the subsidiary bodies, whether by the abolition of these bodies or not.

Mr. Briscoe

What the Minister means when he does abolish a body is that he wants effectively to abolish with that body any representation they may have, ex officio, on subsidiary bodies. Is that the proper way of putting it?

General Mulcahy

The Deputy can put it any way he likes.

Mr. Briscoe

I can see no other reason for it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 2.

General Mulcahy

Section 2 is a rephrasing of sub-section (6) of Section 72 of the 1925 Act with a view to removing all doubts and that when a body is dissolved the internal affairs of that body and the difficulties likely to arise in connection with its internal affairs as distinct from the subsidiary body set up by it may be fully removed.

Mr. O'Kelly

Is the Minister satisfied that this does fully and finally remove all doubts?

General Mulcahy

If I find it does not and that there is occasion to bring in a further Bill to improve the situation I shall not hesitate to do so in the interests of the proper carrying on of business.

Mr. Briscoe

Is the Minister using the word "improve" advisedly?

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

General Mulcahy

Section 3 does the same thing in respect to subsidiary bodies where they are composed of persons who are nominated by the dissolved bodies or where there are subsidiary bodies made up of persons partly nominated by the dissolved bodies.

Mr. Briscoe

What is the position of the Minister if he proceeds to dissolve a subsidiary body of, say, the Dublin Corporation which has on its board nominees of a local authority which he has not dissolved? Are the nominees of the outside body still to function?

General Mulcahy

If a body is dissolved it is dissolved, whatever be the component parts of it. For instance, if the Grangegorman Mental Hospital Committee was dissolved it was dissolved, and neither the representatives of County Wicklow nor of County Dublin or the City of Dublin would have any functions in connection with the matter.

Mr. Briscoe

Or County Louth.

General Mulcahy

Louth is nearly finished.

Mr. Briscoe

Louth is still there. This is the point I want to make. If the Minister wants the Bill workable to give him full powers, and if he wants a body dissolved, and have no residue, let us be quite clear on it. I can visualise the Minister dissolving the Grangegorman governing bodies, but I can see a residue in the shape of representatives of Co. Louth. I want the Minister to remove all doubt. The Minister may shake his head and say "No," but if he reads through the judgement of the Supreme Court in dissolving the body he will not be dissolving, in that mess of pottage, the Louth members. I have a doubt about that.

General Mulcahy

The Grangegorman Mental Hospital Committee is not a subsidiary body of the Louth County Council.

Mr. Briscoe

The Grangegorman Committee is partly a subsidiary body of the Louth County Council.

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Mr. Briscoe

If you intend to dissolve the Dublin section of the lunatic asylum, how are you going to leave the Louth section undissolved?

Mr. Hogan (Clare):

The same thing will arise in connection with vocational education committees. Where, say, you have a county council and two urban councils operating within the jurisdiction of the county council, the urban councils will have representatives on the vocational education committee. Will the vocational education committee disappear when the county council disappears?

General Mulcahy

Certainly not.

Mr. Hogan

The vocational education committee continues to function. The members of the county council will still continue to act on the vocational education committee.

General Mulcahy

I will explain to the Deputy. You have power here in sub-section (a) of Section 3 to replace any body wholly nominated by a dissolved body. Let us take a county council, and let us take it that there is a vocational education committee in that county which is not a joint body. In that case Section (a) (1) gives us power to remove a vocational education committee or alternatively (a) (2) gives us power to set up such number of persons as it is found necessary to act as a vocational committee. If, however, the vocational education committee is a joint body, if say as well as the county council in Clare the urban district council of Ennis is represented on it, then it comes in under Section (b). Section (b) gives power to replace, if necessary, the nominees of the dissolved body on that vocational education committee and to replace them in any way, whether by the appointment of the commissioner dealing with the county or the reappointment of the people who are already on the committee from the county council, or in any other way that it is desired to settle the representation on the joint vocational education committee. It does not interfere with the representation from the Ennis urban district council on that committee.

Mr. Hogan

I am sure the Minister is anxious to make it clear, but I am not thinking particularly of the Ennis urban district council and the Claré County Council. I am thinking perhaps of another district which has a county council functioning and which has members of the urban council on the vocational education committee. If the county council were dissolved would the members of that county council on the vocational education committee automatically cease to be entitled to be members of the vocational education committee? Further, where there is an urban council functioning, what would be the position of the representatives of the urban council on the committee?

General Mulcahy

Let us say we have a vocational education committee representing the joint scheme of an urban council and a county council. Let us say there are four people, A, B, C and D. A, B and C are members of the county council, and D is not a member of the county council, but is selected by the county council to represent it on the joint vocational educational committee. Let us say that E, F, G and H are four members who are members of the urban district council, or who are representing the urban district council. Let us take it that the county council is dissolved, and that Commissioner X is put in charge of it. Under sub-section (b) the Minister is authorised in his order to give power to A, B, C and D to continue to act on the joint committee, or to appoint one, two or three, or any number of other persons to act in their place, or to appoint Commissioner X to act without disturbing the representation of the urban council on the committee.

Mr. Davin

Where does J.J. come in?

Mr. Lemass

The question is—do A, B, C and D cease automatically to be members of the joint committee on the dissolution of the county council?

General Mulcahy

They cease to be members of it by virtue of the fact that they are members of the county council, and they become members of the vocational education committee by virtue of the fact that they have been nominated in the Minister's order to carry on the work there.

Mr. Lemass

There are going to be some more doubts to be removed.

Mr. Hogan

Commissioner X has to give his imprimatur to A, B, C and D to continue to act.

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Mr. Briscoe

Does that mean that the Minister seeks power, rather than the removal of doubts, to have the committees of suppressed bodies dissolved until such persons as he himself considers suitable to act are appointed? The Minister suggests that where A, B, C and D are representatives of a dissolved county council on a vocational education committee he can continue that representation, but if he does not like the kind of collars they wear or the shape of their ears he can exclude them from further activity on that committee.

General Mulcahy

Certainly. He can base his judgment on the usual things on which he bases his judgment.

Mr. Briscoe

In fact, that is all the amendment suggests. If the Minister thinks that he can dissolve a subsidiary body of a local authority, the upkeep of which is met out of the rates struck by that local authority, I think he is going to have more doubts, because any local authority that has any knowledge of principle would cease to strike rates for the upkeep of such subsidiary bodies which would be taken out of their hands by the Minister's order. The Minister will have more doubts.

Section 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4.

General Mulcahy

Section 4 deals particularly with the county boards of health and mental hospitals committees where they are not joint mental hospital committees, for the reason that these are statutory committees of a major body—say, a county council. It is possible that the present Act contains the position that is provided for here. That is where the county council is dissolved the board of health also is dissolved, and the mental hospital committee, where it is not a joint hospitals committee. This section is another section to remove doubts.

Mr. Flinn

Or is it to make confusion worse confounded?

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

General Mulcahy

Section 5 is to deal with a sub-committee of the board of health, such as one of the sub-committees of the board of health and public assistance in Cork, where there are three sub-committees.

Section 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6.

General Mulcahy

Section 6 provides that the joint mental hospitals committee of Grangegorman can make the payments to its officers and employees arising out of the Woods v. Dublin Corporation case, and in accordance with the court order and the legal advice that has been given to the committee as based on that court order. It makes provision that such amounts of money as are involved in the repayment of these moneys to the officers and employees of the Grangegorman Mental Hospital Committee will not be excluded from the rates that have been fixed to a certain extent in respect of Rathmines, Pembroke and the rural areas added to Dublin.

Mr. Briscoe

I should like to get a little more information from the Minister on that point. The Minister suggests that this permits the payment of arrears of salaries to the attendants and officers of the joint mental hospital committee when it is perfectly well known that such payments have long since been made. I should prefer to hear the Minister say that it is to regularise the payment.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy can supply any word he likes. It is to cover or regularise.

Mr. Briscoe

Let us face facts. We have long since paid the money.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy is learning from us.

Mr. Briscoe

In what way?

General Mulcahy

In facing facts.

Mr. Briscoe

Does the Minister mean to suggest that his way of teaching the people to face facts is by sending counsel into Court to oppose the payment of the money which he is now seeking to regularise? Is that facing facts? If the Minister had faced facts in the beginning he would have saved the City of Dublin £60,000 in arrears of salary and costs.

General Mulcahy

When?

Mr. Briscoe

When he sought to reduce illegally the payments to these people; when he ordered the reduction in salaries. The Minister is aware that this money has to be paid out of rates. I want to know has he had representations made to him to permit the raising of a loan for the amount in question to be paid back over a number of years, so that the rates will not suffer by the extra imposition in a particular year; or if he has not had representations made to him, is he prepared to meet that situation by permitting the bodies concerned to raise the amount by way of loan to be repaid over a certain number of years, rather than the full amount out of one year's rate?

General Mulcahy

That question of loan has been provided for. In reply to what the Deputy says about doing things at the beginning, and that the Minister made an order for a reduction of these salaries, the House will pardon me if I deal with that, because it is a point that we had better deal with so that Deputies will know something about the facts, as it has been raised here again following some points made by Deputy Davin last night. In 1920 the General Committee of the Irish Asylums Conference met three representatives from each of the Asylum Committees in the country and the representatives of the Irish Asylums Workers' Union. There had been no joint action previous to that on the part of the committees in connection with wages. The matter was considered and a certain scale of salaries was decided upon, and certain action took place increasing the salaries of the asylum attendants and nurses throughout the country generally.

In November, 1923, when the Estimates for the year 1924-25 were about to be considered, the Minister for Local Government drew the attention of local authorities generally to the urgent necessity for a reduction in rates and a searching examination into current expenditure. Following that, most of the mental hospital committees considered their position with regard to wages, and in a large number of cases reductions were made. In fact, the only areas in the country in which a resolution was not passed in connection with a reduction in the wages of nurses and attendants was in Kerry and Sligo. Reductions actually took place in Donegal in 1924; in Westmeath, I think, in 1925; and elsewhere, with the exception of Sligo and Kerry, in 1926. The position in 1926, as far as Grangegorman was concerned, was something like this: The number of nurses and attendants had gone up between 1914 and 1925 from 331 to 454, an increase of 123, or 35 per cent. The total annual amount spent in wages of nurses and attendants had gone up from £21,538 in 1913-14 to £76,913 in 1923-24, or an increase of £55,375, or 258 per cent. The wages had risen until they were at a point 3½ times larger than they were in 1913-14.

Mr. Briscoe

Perhaps the Minister will make his case correctly. Will he give us the number of inmates in 1914 and in 1926; the cost of upkeep for inmates in 1914 and 1926? Then we will get a fair picture.

General Mulcahy

I am giving a certain picture. There may be certain details that require to be filled in. I have not at present the figures for which the Deputy asks, but they are available. They can be put as facts with the facts as given here in reply to the point raised by the Deputy. As I say, these were the circumstances in 1926, when a proposal came to the Ministry to appoint an additional seven attendants. In July, 1925, in connection with the question of the appointment of seven additional attendants a letter was sent by the Minister to the Grangegorman Mental Hospitals Committee pointing out that in 1919 the hours of duty for nurses and attendants were reduced from 72½ per week to 56 per week; that the period of time that had elapsed was such that an examination might be made into the question of the hours of duty before appointing any additional members to the staff. The letter was considered by the Committee who referred the matter to a sub-committee, who in October, 1925, put up a proposal, after having consulted the staff with regard to the question of hours, that the wages should be reduced. On November 18th the Joint Committee as a whole approved of the report of the sub-committee, and on the 18th December a letter was received from the office of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union. The letter was addressed to the Secretary of the Ministry of Local Government and was as follows:—

"As the Ministry is doubtless aware, a Joint Committee of the Grangegorman Mental Hospital have passed a proposal to enforce reductions varying from ten per cent. to fifty per cent. in the wages of the staff employed in the institution. This proposal has been very seriously considered by the staff, and they strongly contended that in view of all the facts there is no justification for any reduction in their rates.

As the reductions proposal must receive the sanction of your Ministry before it can be put into operation, the staff are very anxious that their views and evidence on the matter be heard by the Ministry, and they ask that a deputation be received to state their case. We notified the Grangegorman Joint Committee of our intention of appealing to the Local Government Minister and at a meeting of the Joint Committee held on the 16th instant the following resolution was passed:—

The Joint Committee have no objection to the Transport Union or any other Union placing their views before the Minister for Local Government, prior to his consideration of the proposed reductions in wages of the staff. If the Minister desires that the Joint Committee should be represented at such conference Mrs. Markey and Messrs. Sheil, Pim and Hernon with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are authorised to attend same.

The letter goes on to say:—

"In view of this resolution we would earnestly request the Minister for Local Government to receive a deputation representative of the staff and hear their views. We should be glad to learn in due course when such a deputation can be received."

That deputation was received and the proposed reduction was discussed with the members of the three unions and representatives of the Grangegorman Mental Hospital Committee in the Minister's office. On the 1st January, the following letter was written to the Vice-President of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, the General Secretary of the Irish Mental Hospitals Workers' Union and to the General President of the Workers' Union for Ireland and the Grangegorman Mental Hospital Committee:—

"With reference to the conference which took place yesterday (31st December) on the questions at issue between the Grangegorman Joint Committee and their staff of attendants and nurses regarding the proposed revision of wages, I have to notify you formally of the decisions which were taken, viz.: The representatives of the Joint Committee and the staff agreed to submit for the consideration of the bodies they represent the following modifications of the proposals set out in report No. 50 of the 28th October, 1925 (Joint Committee's Minutes of Proceedings)."

The proposals were that instead of certain reductions coming into force on the 1st of October—I find I have not the actual date—reductions to the extent of approximately 10 per cent. would come into operation, the first half as from the 1st of April, 1926, and the other half as from the 1st of October, 1926. In reply, letters were received from the three unions. The Workers' Union of Ireland, writing on the 6th of January, say:

"To the Chairman and Gentlemen, Grangegorman Mental Hospital Committee, Portrane: On behalf of the members of the Branch I accept the terms laid down by the Committee and Minister for Local Government at the Conference held on the 30th December, 1925. Thanking you for your patience, etc., on behalf of my branch.—John Ryan, Branch Secretary."

The Irish Transport and General Workers' Union wrote to E.P. McCarron, Ministry of Local Government and Public Health:

"Your letter of the 1st inst. embodying the terms arising out of the conference which took place in your office on the 31st ult. have been duly submitted to the staffs in Grangegorman and Portrane, who have decided, on our advice, to carry on under these modified proposals which we take it will now be confirmed. We are forwarding a copy of this communication to the Chief Clerk, Grangegorman Mental Hospital. An acknowledgment will oblige.—George Spain."

From the Irish Mental Hospital Workers' Union there was the following letter to the Chief Clerk of the Mental Hospital, Grangegorman:

"The proposals regarding wages made at the recent conference at the Local Government Department offices were considered by our members in Grangegorman and Portrane, and I am directed to state that, while protesting against the Committee breaking the Joint Conference wages agreement, it was decided to accept the proposals.—Yours truly, M.J. O'Connor, General Secretary."

That is the position with regard to the proposals made for reduction.

Mr. Davin

Would the Minister say whether the Irish Women Workers' Union was represented at that conference and if not, why not? Is it not a fact that at that time they represented a considerable number of women attendants in the Asylum?

General Mulcahy

I do not think they did. The position as far as that Union was concerned was this: the Irish Women Workers' Union did not appear upon this particular scene and did not appear for more than twelve months afterwards, as a matter of fact—somewhere about June, July or August, 1927. It was then that that Union and another Union, called the Mental Hospitals Workers' Protection Association, came on the scene. I do not want to go into the general development of the court position with regard to this case because I do not think it would be profitable or that anything would come from it, but that body of which the Deputy speaks did not appear on the scene until 1927.

Mr. Davin

Does the Minister admit that the Women Workers' Union at the time of that Conference did actually represent a considerable number of the women attendants in Grangegorman and other places?

General Mulcahy

I cannot admit anything about that, but I think we must infer this, that they cannot have asked to be present and that they made no representations in the matter. Reductions in wages were accepted and came into operation in April, 1926, and in October, 1926, and then nothing was heard until a certain decision was given in the courts. The question was then re-opened in 1927, and the Union the Deputy speaks about came on the scene. Deputy Briscoe looked for some figures, making a comparison as to the return that is got for the money. He raised the question of the number of patients there so that when we compare one year with another, in the matter of cost we might compare one year with another in the matter of patients. The figures with regard to patients are available. But so far as wages are concerned. I think the reductions were considered in Grangegorman. The position with regard to wages was that the scale of pay for men attendants was in 1914, £22 by £1 to £37; in 1925, £60 by £6 to £90. This as the maximum pay had been increased from £37 to £90 and there was in addition an increase in respect of long service. That is where a man had 10 years' service he had £12 a year additional; 15 years £22 and 20 years £32. There was increase in the extra charges for charge attendant of another £5 and for deputy charge attendant of £5 10s. In the case of female attendant nurses the scale had increased from £15 by 14s. to £25 10s. to £42 by £6 to £72, with the additional sum for long service of £12 for ten years, £22 for 15 years and £32 for 20 years, and there was an additional increase in respect of charge nurses and nursing certificates.

As to what the Deputy says about the Minister ordering reductions in pay or something like that, my personal position is that I have no desire in any way to force a hard bargain with any section of workers or to induce mental hospital committees to do so. I have seen some of the work of these institutions, and if there is any doubt on one side or the other, as to whether the pay is big or small, I would be inclined to give the benefit of it to people like nurses and attendants in these institutions, but what the Department has not done and should not do in this particular matter is to shut its eyes to the rapidly and greatly increasing cost of some sections of local government administration. I hope that when the facts in connection with these negotiations are put before Deputies concerned with the administration of Grangegorman Mental Hospital they will be news to them. If they are not news to them I cannot understand their attitude in making the charges against the Department of ordering a reduction in those salaries.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the question of the merits of such reduction arise in this particular case?

General Mulcahy

I hope that I have not dealt with the merits. I hope that all I have done is to state the facts.

Ceann Comhairle

The merits of the actions of the Committee do not arise.

Mr. Briscoe

I stated that the Minister is responsible, and must shoulder responsibility for this reason. He spoke of the Committee's functions in 1925, when he knows that, so far as Dublin City is concerned, no such committee functioned. Mr. Hernon, whose name was mentioned by the Minister, was Commissioner at the time.

An Ceann Comhairle

That point has arisen over and over again. The Minister cannot be made responsible for the actions of the Commissioner.

Mr. Briscoe

I welcome the statement of the Minister, because it will give us an opportunity of comparing it with other statements, and will enable us to satisfy ourselves in regard to the past and to arrange our conduct in the future. I do not know whether the Minister wants to give figures merely for the purpose of making a statement, but he says that one of the things which confronted the Ministry in 1924 was the cost of maintenance, and that it had risen from £21,000 in 1914 to £76,000 in 1925. The Minister should say that hand in hand with that there were so many patients per attendant, that the attendants worked so many hours; and he should also say whether he considered a working period of 76 hours per week was too much or too little. When he considers the question of wages paid to attendants he should also consider the cost of living in 1914 as compared with 1925-26. The Minister knows that there was a considerable increase in the population of these institutions, so far as inmates were concerned, particularly during the War years, especially as regards a particularly dangerous type of lunatic who required more attention than an ordinary patient. I have looked into these figures.

General Mulcahy

I think that the Deputy will find that he is entirely wrong, and that the number of patients in mental hospitals went down during the War.

Mr. Briscoe

Will the Minister say what the number of patients was in 1914 and what it was in 1922-23? The Minister says that it is his duty to see that efficient administration is carried out, not only in regard to the attention paid to the inmates, but also to see that there is no extravagance on the part of the Committee. If the Minister were really anxious to hold a watching brief for the ratepayers he would try and help the Committee to recover from another Department of State arrears of the capitation grant which they have been claiming for a considerable number of years, and which now amounts to thousands of pounds. The reduction of the capitation grant meant an extra imposition on the shoulders of the ratepayers.

General Mulcahy

Surely, in the first place, the Deputy is discussing a matter which has nothing to do with this question, which, in the second place would require legislation to remedy it, and which, in the third place is not exactly as he states it.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister said, in the first place, that he was there to hold a watching brief on behalf of the public, and to see that there was no extravagant administration on the part of the Committee. I am trying to show the Minister that if he is anxious to do his job properly he will see that they are paid the money owed to them by the State.

General Mulcahy

If you have extravagant expenditure you do not reduce extravagance by increasing the proportion of State money to be spent and reducing the proportion of payment from the rates. The expenditure of State money can be quite as extravagant as the expenditure of money paid out of rates.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister has sought to-make a great point——

An Ceann Comhairle

Are we on the question of extravagance?

Mr. Briscoe

I am not admitting that there was extravagance.

An Ceann Comhairle

I fail to understand how the question of capitation grants comes into Section 6.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister talks about the inmates and about the persons who have to pay for the upkeep of these institutions. He says he is there for that purpose, but if he is there for that purpose he should help the Committees to recover this money, because it would mean not extravagant expenditure, but a reduction in the sum that would be required in future from the ratepayers.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy is asking for an increase in the subvention from State sources.

Mr. Briscoe

No, the Minister does not see it. I am not as thick as he thinks.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have no sympathy with the Minister.

Mr. Briscoe

I have little sympathy with him, but I want to get the matter adjusted.

An Ceann Comahirle

I want to get back to Section 6. I would hardly think that the question of wage reduction is relevant to it, but I have allowed the history. The question of capitation grant is not, however, relevant.

General Mulcahy

I was dragged into it very reluctantly.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister states that he was reluctantly dragged into it, but considering that he had before him a pile of documents with all the facts and figures, I think he should thank us for having given him an opportunity of putting on record something which he was bursting to say yesterday and overlooked, and which he has now got off his chest.

General Mulcahy

I like to have my ammunition ready, but I avoid battle as often as I can.

Mr. Briscoe

We all can talk of war. I suppose the Minister can declare war but no one must fight except himself. Will the Minister now say that there was extravagance in connection with the number of attendants who were maintained out of the public purse in order to attend to inmates in these institutions? Will he say that they were overpaid to a great extent, or that their salaries were commensurate with their services, and that the number of attendants was not over and above the number required? The Minister knows that the Committee recently asked him to sanction a small increase in the salary of the dentist who attends the hospital, but he turned it down. If, on one hand, he says he is out to see that a proper return is given in the shape of salaries paid to attendants, and that he is not going to reduce them below what they are justly entitled to, how, on the other hand, can he put that on a par with his refusal to pay a dentist more than £100 a year for attending to the teeth of 4,000 patients? When the Committee suggested that that dentist should be given an increase of £100 a year, in two instalments of £50 each, the Minister turns it down, and then comes here and says:—"I am not going to stand for the underpayment of attendants or nurses, but I will not give a slight increase in salary to a dentist who has to look after the teeth of almost 4,000 people."

An Ceann Comhairle

The dentist is irrelevant.

General Mulcahy

I am not going to talk about the dentist, but I am in a position to put things in a little better perspective for the Deputy. The average daily number of patients in the institution in the year 1914 was 3,240. For the year ending March 31st, 1921, it had increased by 156 to 3,396.

Mr. Briscoe

What about 1922?

General Mulcahy

The latest year before that was 1920, when the number was 3,346. That is less, so that the Deputy can now get his perspective. The increase in the number of patients was about 4.8 per cent.

Mr. Briscoe

What about the year 1925-26, in which you made the reduction?

General Mulcahy

In the year 1925 the number was 3,413.

Mr. Briscoe

That is a bit more. Again the numbers for 1926?

General Mulcahy

Will the Deputy just listen to this?

Mr. Briscoe

Give us the relevant dates.

General Mulcahy

I am giving the Deputy the figures asked for, for 1923-24, and they will be quite satisfactory.

Mr. Briscoe

I asked for the 1925 figures. I am not interested in 1923-1924.

General Mulcahy

I am interested. The figures for 1925 were 3,413 and for 1926, 3,422. Taking the year 1925, we have an increase of 173 on the year 1914, so that you have an increase in patients between 1914 and 1925 of five per cent. You have an increase in attendants of thirty-five per cent. and you have an increase in the case of attendants' wages——

Deputy Briscoe

rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let the Minister make his own statement.

General Mulcahy

—of 258 per cent. The figures are, therefore, 5 per cent., 35 per cent., and 258 per cent.

Mr. Briscoe

Can I interrupt the Minister now?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may ask the Minister a question.

Mr. Briscoe

Will the Minister state what the working hours of the attendants were in 1914, and what they were in 1926?

General Mulcahy

I told the Deputy that.

Mr. Briscoe

Were they not, respectively, 72 and 56?

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Mr. Briscoe

Therefore, when you reduced the working hours you required more attendants to attend to an increased number of patients.

General Mulcahy

Is that so?

Mr. Briscoe

That is so. Two and two are four.

Mr. O'Kelly

On Section 6, I do not know if a point was raised with the Minister when a deputation waited upon him, but I heard it discussed, and I think it was the intention to raise it. However, of that I am not certain. The point is with regard to the legal costs that were incurred arising out of the legal actions that were taken. The Dublin Corporation was not in any way responsible for the actions. The Dublin Corporation, except in so far as it was represented by Commissioners on the Grangegorman Board, was not responsible for whatever costs arose out of these legal actions. It is not the declared opinion of the Corporation, but I know it is the opinion of a great number of members of the Corporation, that the Corporation and the ratepayers of Dublin should not be held liable for the addition to the rates due to the cost of these several legal actions. I think there was an intention at some time to put it up to the Minister that the Minister, to a greater extent than the Dublin Corporation, at any rate, to put it mildly, being responsible for the legal costs in these actions, ought to pay and ought to indemnify the Corporation against the sum such as it was, and not charge it to the rates. I would like to know if the question was at any time put to the Minister, and if it was not put to the Minister, if he would take it from me now and give an answer as to whether there is any likelihood of the Ministry bearing the cost.

General Mulcahy

I think not only was the Ministry asked to bear the costs in law, but it was asked to bear the whole thing. There is no intention on the part of the Minister for Finance to provide a sum to defray the costs in these cases. With your permission, sir, I would ask leave to move that in Section 6, line 54, the words "by the said Committee" be deleted. The borrowing in this case will not be done by the Committee.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sections 7, 8 and the Title put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported, with amendments.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Bill reported with amendments. Report Stage to be taken on Friday, 19th June.