Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are out of order.
County Management Bill, 1939—Report Stage.
Mr. Brennan
Perhaps the Chair would say why amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are out of order. I think that it is due to the House that the reason should be stated.
As Deputies will remember, there were submitted on the Committee Stage of this Bill at least a dozen amendments relative to persons who might be eligible for appointment to the post of county managers. One of these amendments was to the effect that any local official with 15 years' service should be eligible. In all there were some 15 amendments, the debate covering 23 columns of the report. I considered that, in essence, this point had already been met and that, if there was another alternative, it should have been submitted on the Committee Stage. Because the matter had, in my estimation, been effectually discussed and because the alternative now proposed comes too late, I have ruled these two amendments out of order.
Mr. Brennan
My recollection is that there was only one case of this kind in the whole of the country and that it was news to Deputies that there was such an office, which is the equivalent to the secretaryship of a board of health. For the sake of the mover, I thought it right that the matter should be explained to the House.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 5, line 55, Section 4 (5), before the word "county" to insert the word "first."
This amendment is intended to ensure that, where a temporary manager is appointed, he shall not automatically become the permanent manager. A manager may die or a vacancy may occur in some other way and the Minister may have to make a temporary appointment. This amendment is designed to ensure that, when the permanent manager is being appointed, the temporary manager will not automatically fill that post.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 6, line 6, Section 4 (7) (a) before the word "the" to insert the words "or is held only by a temporary appointee".
This amendment is consequential. It provides that where a temporary manager is appointed for the City of Dublin he shall not be the permanent manager for the county.
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
5. In page 6, line 10, Section 4 (7) (b), before the word "to" to insert in brackets the words "(whether permanently or temporarily)", and in line 12, before the word "by" to insert in brackets the words "(permanently or temporarily, as the case may require)".—(Minister for Local Government and Public Health.)
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 6, to add at the end of Section 5, a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) The payments to be made by a joint body to the council of a county or the corporation of a county borough in pursuance of the next preceding sub-section of this section shall be raised and defrayed by such joint body in the like manner as the salaries of the officers of such joint body are raised and defrayed.
This amendment is designed to express more clearly what has been already implied.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 6, at the end of Section 6, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
The county manager for a county shall not be removed by the Minister without an inquiry being held at which the council (or councils) and manager concerned shall be given an opportunity of being heard and without the reasons for removal being previously communicated to such council (or councils) and manager.
We had a very long discussion on a similar point on the Committee Stage, and we felt that the Minister did not satisfy us. We felt that it was possible that a situation might arise in which a council would find itself deprived of its manager without any reason being given to anybody. The Minister said that, under a sealed order, he was not obliged to give any reason and would not give any reason. We think there ought to be some security for the manager. A great deal was said on Second Reading and on Committee Stage about the manager being a puppet of the Department. I did not hold that view, and I do not want to be forced to hold it. But I think that if the manager is in the hands of the Minister to the extent that he may be dismissed by him without reason stated, he becomes, in fact, a puppet of the Minister. That is not desirable. While some of us supported the idea of a county manager, we did not think that the Minister would take to himself a right of this sort. We felt that the manager ought to be responsible to the council, and that he ought to feel his responsibility, not to the Minister, but to those for whom he is administering the affairs of the county—the people. After a long discussion on Committee Stage, I understood that the Minister was going to consider the point. We thought the Minister was going to meet us in some way which would be satisfactory and that the councils would, at least, be told why the manager was being removed. We thought that the manager would have some security and that he would be in a sufficiently independent position to deal with the affairs of the county as he thought best, apart from the Minister. The Minister has his rights in the case of every official but, in this case, we felt that unless the manager had that security he would be entirely in the hands of the Minister. He would be the creature of the Minister and would be at the beck and call of the Department, no matter what the views of the council or the ratepayers might be.
Under this Bill, the Minister has not the right of removal. The right of removal rests with the county council and the exercise of that right is subject to sanction by the Minister. The removal of the county manager is governed in the same way as other cases under the local authorities. It comes under the Temporary Provisions Act of 1923. An order was made in 1924 under that Act governing these matters. So far as this Bill is concerned, this amendment is not relevant. Whatever amendments are to be made should be made either to the 1923 Act or to the Bill which will be introduced subsequently, which will deal with officers of local bodies. When that Bill is before the House, it might be relevant for the Deputy to move an amendment of this kind. In practice, however, apart from the question of relevancy, there is generally an inquiry and the officer concerned is notified of the charges made against him. There are certain cases in which it would not be proper that there should be an inquiry. We have had cases where local officers were charged with embezzlement. No action was taken, except to suspend the officer, until the result of the criminal proceedings was known. If this amendment were passed, the Deputy might be doing a dubious service to an officer in that position. If he were convicted, he would not want to have the whole thing over again. We have had cases in which the proceedings in court relating to defalcations and embezzlement lasted for a very long time. If we were not to accept the verdict of a competent criminal court without further inquiry, it would be very foolish.
Mr. Brennan
We have been sent from post to pillar in connection with these Bills. We were told in regard to the Assistance Bill that certain matters which we wanted to raise should be raised on the County Management Bill. Now, when we come to the County Management Bill, we are told that they should be raised on a further Bill. I pointed out the invidious position in which the House was placed when it could not get a true picture of what it was proposed to do. We tackled the matter in piecemeal fashion and got no idea as to how the ends would be dovetailed. That had to be left for future consideration. The Minister says that this amendment might be relevant to another Bill. He points out that an inquiry might be held. But an inquiry might not be held. The Minister refers to embezzlement. Has he any objection, as the Minister for Local Government, to informing a county council that their manager has been accused and found guilty of embezzlement and, consequently, is not fit to be a county manager?
He would be informed that he is unfit to hold the position—that is the practice.
Mr. Brennan
I do not want to go back on things already said in the House and I do not want to be raising anything unfairly, but the Minister and Deputies will recollect that not so very long ago a very distinguished officer in the Department of Local Government was relieved of his position without any reason being given. That is the kind of thing that we want to guard against. We want to see that the county manager will not be the creature of the Department. The Minister should see that certain steps are taken before a person is deprived of office. This discussion arose largely on Section 8, and I admit it might not be quite relevant. The proposal in the section is that the Minister may, whenever he so thinks proper, revoke an appointment—that is, with regard to managers for joint bodies. Even though that is hedged around by a lot of difficulties, so far as the Minister is concerned, I think it would be desirable that the Minister should state why he has decided to take the management of a mental hospital, in which two counties are interested, from one man and give it to the other.
The Minister made a good case, but once having committed himself to that, there might be an injustice or he might be slighting somebody by making the change. Perhaps there are difficulties in the way of the Minister meeting me in this case, but I think it should not be beyond his ingenuity or the ingenuity of the Department to meet the point and let the House feel that county managers have an independent status and that they are quite entitled to carry on their administration even to the extent of fighting the Local Government Department if necessary. But when a county manager feels that he may be asked to quit his post without saying yea or nea, I am afraid you will not have the independent administration that we desire in this country. Will the Minister give us some information as to how this position may be safeguarded in the next Bill?
It is safeguarded at the present moment by the Local Officers (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1923 and the order made under that in 1924. As the Deputy knows, that was a temporary measure which has been continued up to the present. The intention is that in the new Local Government Bill these temporary provisions will be repealed and re-enacted with or without amendment. I cannot say at the moment what the exact position will be. So far as this Bill is concerned, there is no power being taken by the Minister to remove a manager. Whatever power there is to remove a manager, it is vested in the county council with, of course, the sanction of the Minister. Wherever the Deputy's point may be relevant, it is not relevant on this Bill.
As regards revoking an appointment in the case of managers for joint bodies the position was visualised where there might be a joint body for seperate counties, and it might be found convenient to make a change and replace one county manager by the other as the manager of the joint body. This has nothing to do with removal or anything of that kind. It might perhaps impose extra duties on one manager. It was a method of elasticity to meet a situation that might arise at some time. There is nothing sinister about this Bill in so far as attempting to put managers in a peculiar or invidious position is concerned.
This office of county manager is not, generally speaking, a popular office in the sense that other offices under a local authority are regarded as popular offices. A two-thirds majority is all that is required to get rid of a man. The Minister may have that majority from county councils and he will be faced with a dilemma. Is he going to stand up against a majority on the part of the county council when that majority is, in his opinion, wrong? As the Bill stands, the easier way for the Minister or his successor is simply to agree. What Deputy Brennan hopes to get is some indication of the reason for dismissal of the manager other than the majority vote of the council. Had there been such a course open in certain cases recently it is possible certain councils would have been disposed to dispense with the services of the manager.
Unquestionably, there has been a fairly strong bias throughout the country on the part of members of local authorities with regard to the appointment of a manager. There is a certain element of danger that the council may, by a majority, seek to get rid of the principle of this Bill. So far as that is concerned, the Minister is faced with having to resist the majority decision on the part of the local authority. The point is that the Minister will inform the council why he will not do it. Is this the position, that reasons will be given only when it will not be done and reasons will not be given when it will be done?
I see the point the Deputy raises and I might say that that matter has been considered. Very often the Department finds itself in the position that several resolutions, trying to do certain things, are passed by big majorities. The Department is there to stand against that. I can see where a manager, when he does his work, may have to do unpopular things, but you must rely on the Department to stand against that kind of thing. If councils were allowed to do certain of the things that they propose to do, perhaps sometimes by big majorities, I am afraid we would find ourselves in a difficult position. That sort of thing has been opposed in the past, and I think the Department can be relied upon to stand against it in the future. No county manager will be removed without an inquiry being held. If the council make charges against a manager, an inquiry in the ordinary way will be held and the Department will have to be satisfied that the case they make is not only substantiated but also that it is a proper case to make. The place where the point that has been raised can be remedied is in relation to the Local Officers (Temporary Provisions) Act and not under this Bill. When the Local Government Bill will be going through the Dáil shortly—in this session at any rate—Deputies will have every opportunity to raise those matters, but I do not think that this is the appropriate time.
Mr. Brennan
There is one point at the moment that I would like to put before the House. The Minister may find himself in difficulties in regard to the endeavour to adapt the Temporary Provisions Act as regards managers. I question very much if a manager is an employee of the council at all. He is not employed by the county council and he becomes manager by the fact that he is recommended. He is not appointed by the county council and not appointed by anybody. If the Minister goes to court he may find himself in a very difficult position in that way. The manager is in a very different position from any other employee. His position is a new one, and it is possibly a position in which the majority of county councils do not like placing people. It will require certain treatment and it should be so treated. If the Minister thinks he can bring in the county manager automatically under the Officers and Employees Act he may be making a mistake. He is not an employee of the council or it is doubtful at any rate that he is though he may be an officer.
Under Section 3 (4), the county manager is an officer of the county council.
There may be a danger in the point that Deputy Brennan raises. A council may want to get rid of a manager for an unjust reason but there may be also the danger that the manager would be set up and hedged around with all sorts of safeguards. You could have a danger in either direction to-day. The councils should be safeguarded as well as the managers. These men will wield very great powers and a manager could wield them very unjustly. But when all is said and done the Department is there with the power to stand between the council and the manager. It is quite possible that the manager who may be appointed may not treat the people or the council justly.
Mr. Brennan
He has not been appointed by them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 6, line 50, Section 8 (2), before the word "two" to insert the words "into a county borough and."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 7, to delete Section 10 (2) and substitute a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Every office of Dublin Assistant County Manager shall always be held by the same person as holds the corresponding office of Dublin Assistant City Manager.
What is wrong with the sub-section as it stands at present?
It is not clear. This is to make it clear that the assistant manager for the City of Dublin should be also an assistant manager for the county.
In this section we are setting out to do what seems to be a rather unusual thing in legislation. We are taking out the manager and town clerk of the Dun Laoghaire Borough Council and designating him as one of the Dublin Assistant City Managers, but by virtue of the amendment now moved we are making him an assistant county manager. We pass from that to the position of secretary of the Dublin County Council. We say in Section 10, sub-section (4) (a)
"if the county secretary of the County of Dublin is a candidate and suitable the said commissioners shall recommend such county secretary."
It seems to me that whether wittingly or unwittingly the Minister has done a very serious injustice and has ridden roughshod over the person who is already Deputy City Manager.
The Deputy realises that the section is not open to discussion except as affected by this amendment.
If the Chair rules that it cannot be raised at this stage I can raise it on the Final Stage of the Bill.
If a discussion on that matter were allowed it is hard to say when it would be closed.
All right then; I can have a discussion later on.
I hope that will be to-day.
Oh, no, the Minister cannot get over this thing in one day.
Amendment No. 9 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 9, line 52, Section 13 (4), after the word "year" to insert the words "or, in the case of the local financial year in which this Act commences, in respect of the portion of that year subsequent to the commencement of this Act."
The position is that the charges go back to the 1st April and this is to ensure that they will have to pay a proportion from whatever day they are appointed.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 9, line 54, Section 13 (4), to delete the word "paid" and substitute the word "payable".
This follows the previous amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 10, to add at the end of Section 13 a new sub-section as follows:—
(10) The payments to be made by a joint body to the Corporation of Dublin in pursuance of this section shall be raised and defrayed in the like manner as the salaries of the officers of such joint body are raised and defrayed.
This gives the same power to the joint bodies in Dublin as the general bodies elsewhere.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 13, before Section 18 (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) Any member of the council of a county or of an elective body shall be entitled on demand to be furnished by the county manager for such county or by the manager for such elective body (as the case may be) with a copy of any particular order (specified by such member) made by such county manager or manager under this section.
This amendment was brought in to meet some proposals by the Opposition. Any member of the council can get a copy of any order that has been made by the manager. I undertook to introduce this amendment.
Mr. Brennan
Yes, that meets the point well.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are out of order. Deputy Brennan accepts that?
Mr. Brennan
I will have to accept it, but I hardly think it is fair. These are the two sub-section I tried to get out. It is not because they contained these words but because the matter was accepted without proof. I do not know how we are to prove the contrary, if we cannot get the man into the witness chair.
It will be done just as at present. It will be proved in the same way as now. If the Deputy's amendment were put in it would mean that a bogus order could be got away with.
Mr. Brennan
The Minister means if this amendment were made?
Yes. It will be proved as the county councils prove their minutes now.
Mr. Brennan
My view was strengthened by the fact that the matter was argued out here on a provisions Bill and they took out those two sub-sections. That was the Pigs and Bacon Bill.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In page 14, line 43, section 21 (1), before the word "requirements" to insert the words "liabilities and".
This is to ensure that the liabilities carried forward, as well as the liabilities for the year, will be met.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In page 14, in Section 21 (2), line 53, and in sub-section (3), line 56, and in page 15, in Section 21 (3), line 3, to delete in each place the word "twenty-one" and substitute the word "seven."
This is cutting down the time from 21 days to seven days.
Mr. Brennan
I think that is desirable.
This could be put over for months and months before the real estimate could be got.
Mr. Brennan
The Minister might feel that the work would be held up.
Yes, and seven days is more suitable than 21 days.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In page 15, line 19, Section 22 (1), before the word "requirements" to insert the words "liabilities and."
This is consequential on amendment No. 16.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In page 15, in Section 22 (2), line 30, and in sub-section (3), line 33 and also line 41, to delete in each case the word "twenty-one" and substitute the word "seven."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In page 16, line 33, Section 23 (3), to delete the word "fourteen" and substitute the word "six."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In page 16, Section 24 (1), to insert in line 41 after the word "expenses" the words "for any local financial year".
Amendments Nos. 21 to 27 are interdependent. My object in putting them down is this: that experienced administrators feel that some of the purposes of this Bill might be defeated by the wording of Section 24 as it stands, that it is so comprehensive as to prevent the possibility of the expenditure of even £1 over the estimate for a year. It has been the settled law for a great number of years, so far as local administration is concerned, that rates raised for one service cannot be utilised for expenditure on another service. For instance, if there was a deficit on the service for university scholarships it could not be recouped from an excess of revenue under the Small Dwellings Act. It appears that the construction of this section is based on the legislative procedure in central government where, within limits, certain funds can be transferred from one service to another. That would be wholly inapplicable in the matter of administration from local rates. In practice it is found very difficult to estimate local expenditure so closely for any one year that a county secretary or an accountant can say that he will not have to apply for an additional sum of money during the year. Take law costs. A solicitor's schedule of costs is presented half-yearly, some times yearly and not infrequently at longer intervals. That schedule has to be divided up between roads and county services. If the total under either head exceeds the estimate by even £1 the manager cannot pay the solicitor's schedule of costs. Suppose, again, that temporary clerical assistance were needed, it is felt that even though it might be very urgent and might cost only, say, £10 per month, it could not be obtained because of the fact that it had not been provided for in the estimate. Suppose a county manager had to take legal action which would involve an expenditure of £100 in the Circuit or High Court in the interests of the general body of the ratepayers, he would first have to get the consent of the local council, and in that event there would be the possibility that local interests might prevent legal action being taken which would be in the interests of the general body of the ratepayers.
Take the case of imperative payments such as expenditure which is debited direct to the county fund without the consent of the county council. One example is the cattle disease fund. In that case, if an extra ¼d. in the £ were required, the sanction of the council would have to be secured under Section 24, and this might or might not be withheld at their discretion, despite the fact that the law ordains that this money has to be paid. Deputies can realise the kind of situation that would create. Take another example. During the course of the financial year a number of laws are passed. We have had the Fire Brigades Bill this year which requires additional expenditure. The payment of money under that head could or could not be withheld, according to the desires of the board of health. There is also the question of home assistance. Suppose the sum of £10,000 is estimated for, and suppose circumstances arose in the course of the financial year in which a greater amount of money were needed—as might happen in present circumstances when men are thrown out of employment or because of a strike or something of that kind— in that event the home assistance would have to be reduced or perhaps stopped altogether during a period when it was most urgently required. There is another aspect of this to be considered, and that is the extra amount of accounting work which will be entailed as a result of this section. Separate accounts will have to be kept in respect of each power, function and duty of the county council. The accounts will have to be recorded and tabulated, posted in a ledger and the total shown from week to week and month to month and compared with the relevant totals allowed in the estimate. I understand another difficulty would arise in connection with contractors who very often do not present their accounts, except perhaps annually. In that case something like this might happen: that accounts estimated for in one year would not be presented until the estimate for the next year came along. The question would then arise, to what year should they be charged. My reason for suggesting these amendments for the consideration of the Minister is in the hope that the objects of the Bill may achieved.
It could be held under the Bill as it stands that the powers of the manager would be limited: that, if he were able to effect a saving under one item he would not be at liberty to apply it to another. As Deputies know, the four main heads in county council accounts are: (1) the making and construction of roads; (2) county services; (3) poor relief, and (4) board of health charges. As regards these it was intended to give a discretion to the manager, but, as the Bill stands, it is doubtful whether that discretion is there. I think it is desirable that a discretion should be there, and that, as regards individual items within the main sub-heads, if there was a saving in one particular item it might be applied to another under which there was a shortage. At the same time I think it is desirable that, if the manager exceeds his estimate under any of the four main heads, he should have to go back to the council and get its approval for the additional expenditure. Subject to this I am prepared to accept the amendments in principle, but further amendments, which I propose to have moved in the Seanad, will be necessary.
Amendment No. 21, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 22 to 27 not moved.
I move amendment No. 28:—
In page 16, before Section 25, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Each body to which this Act applies shall as soon as may be after the expiration of each half-year (but not later than four months after the close of each financial half-year) have its accounts audited by a Local Government auditor, or by a chartered accountant, appointed by the Minister for that purpose.
(2) After the completion of the audit for each half-year there shall be inserted in a newspaper or newspapers, circulating in the administrative area, a statement of receipts and expenditure under the various heads; a summary of balances in favour or against each account, and the manager's or secretary's statement of assets and liabilities.
(3) As soon as may be after the completion of each half-yearly audit the complete abstract of accounts duly certified by the auditor shall be printed, and copies of such abstracts made available to ratepayers on payment of one shilling for each copy.
It will be remembered that, under the Local Government Act of 1898, local bodies were required to publish in the local Press an abstract of the accounts for audit. This was discontinued later, but I think that was because of the form in which they were published; they took up a lot of space in the newspapers and perhaps were too costly. Under this Bill it is not clear whether the members of a local authority will have any opportunity of examining payments or learning anything about the expenditure unless they attend at the actual time of the audit. Ratepayers will only have the same opportunity. I think it will be admitted by anybody who has anything to do with a local authority that the opportunity given to ratepayers is very rarely availed of. I do not know what the reason is, but it certainly is very rarely availed of. At present local authorities have complete control over expenditure, sanctioning the outlay in the first instance, and examining and vouching for the payment. How far local authorities will have any say in such matters under this Bill seems to be doubtful. I, therefore, suggest that this amendment is an appropriate one. In recent years it has been the practice to permit of audits being held off for a long time. I have in mind a council where almost five years have elapsed since there was an audit. So far as the ratepayers are concerned these audits are practically worthless. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that some form should be adopted whereby the accounts of certain councils should be published so that the people can see what the position is so far as the finances of their council is concerned. I do not mean that there should be an elaborate abstract of accounts as was provided for under the Local Government Act of 1898; but if we could get a summary or short account of the expenditure and income of the councils, I think it would be very desirable that it should be laid down definitely in this Bill that there should be publication of these accounts, especially after an audit.
The Deputy will see that under Section 26, a member of a council is entitled to get any information he wants. With regard to publication, I suggest that a better way of having any regulations like that would be under a Public Bodies Order, as it is not advisable to have these things too rigid. I do not want to criticise the amendment, but it puts the onus on the local bodies to have their accounts audited by a Local Government auditor or by a chartered accountant appointed by the Minister. I agree that it is very undesirable that there should be delay in auditing the accounts, but if you want to get these accounts audited within four months it will mean that you will have to employ a number of extra auditors and that these auditors will for the remaining eight months of the year have nothing to do. I am only a very short time in this Department, and I know that chartered accountants are a very admirable body of men, but they have not got contact with the working of public bodies. I imagine it is through the extra time necessary, but it has worked out in practice in the few instances I have come across that their engagement has been a big charge on the councils. I do not think it is desirable to have rigidity about things like this and I think it could be more suitably adapted to a Public Bodies Order.
Will the Minister keep that in mind and see what can be done?
Yes.
I am more concerned with the publication.
The publication would be desirable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 29:—
In page 21, to add at the end of Section 33 a new sub-section as follows:—
(8) Every order made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as conveniently may be after it is made and if either such House shall, within the next 21 days on which it sits after such order is laid before it, pass a resolution annulling such order or any rule or rules made thereby, such order, rule, or rules (as the case may be) shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
This was raised by Deputy Doyle and I undertook to bring in this amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In page 22, before Section 35 (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) In the case of a board of health which, immediately before the commencement of this Act, stands dissolved by virtue of an order made under Section 72 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), the following provisions shall have effect as on and from such commencement, that is to say:—
(a) the said order shall cease to have effect and the said Section 72 shall cease to apply to the said board of health;
(b) the said board of health shall continue to be dissolved, but such dissolution shall be deemed to have been effected by virtue of this section and accordingly the foregoing sub-section of this section shall apply and have effect in relation to the said board of health;
(c) the powers, functions, and duties transferred by the said foregoing sub-section shall include all powers, functions, and duties which are, immediately before such commencement, exercisable or required to be performed by a person, persons, or body appointed in that behalf by any order of the Minister under the said Section 72.
This is to cover the case where boards are dissolved at the time the Act comes into operation. There are five such boards at the moment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
31. In page 22, line 32, Section 35 (2), before the word "by" to insert the words "or deemed to have been dissolved."—(Aire Riaghaltais Aiteamhail agus Sláinte Poiblidhe).
I move amendment No. 32:—
In page 25, line 7, Second Schedule, paragraph 14, after the word "borough" to add the words "or, in the case of the borough of Dun Laoghaire, the chairman of the borough."
Dun Laoghaire is the only borough mentioned in which there is not a Mayor.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:—
In page 25, line 19, Second Schedule, paragraph 20, to delete the word "an" and substitute the words "a superannuation."
This is a drafting amendment. As set out in the Bill "an allowance" might mean even a gratuity. What we want to provide is that it should be a superannuation allowance. It is restricting rather than extending.
Mr. Brennan
Does it include the possibility of a gratuity?
It does not include a gratuity. "Allowance" has apparently a wider meaning than "superannuation allowance".
Mr. Brennan
Would there be any danger of a difficulty arising where an officer who was entitled to something was not entitled to superannuation through the operation of some other Act?
That does not preclude that at all.
Amendment put and agreed to.
The following amendment was agreed to.
34. In page 25, line 29, Third Schedule, paragraph 1, before the word "and" to insert the words "and, in the case of a board of health which, immediately before the commencement of this Act, stands dissolved by virtue of an order made under Section 72 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), includes a person, persons, or body appointed by any order of the Minister under the said Section 72 to exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties of such board of health."—Aire Riaghaltais Aiteamhail agus Sláinte Poiblidhe.
Question proposed: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."
The Dáil divided: Tá 71; Níl, 20.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Carty, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Friel, John.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Broderick, William J.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Keyes, Michael.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- Pattison, James P.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and T. Crowley; Níl: Deputies Corish and Hurley.
Question declared carried.
When is it proposed to take the Final Stage?
I suggest that we take it now.
Oh, no.
As long as we can keep that Bill from you, we shall keep it.
I propose next Wednesday then.
Final Stage ordered for Wednesday, 24th April.