It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 4, 5 and 6, then 9, 7, 8, 2 and 3.
Order of Business.
The Minister is aware that item No. 8—Saint Laurence O'Toole Hospital Bill—is controversial business.
I have just been informed that some matter has been raised with regard to that being controversial business. I understand that refers to the Local Government Bill as well as to the Saint Laurence O'Toole Bill. I had not an opportunity of discussing it with my colleagues, who represent this side of the House on the Defence Conference, when the matter was raised. But with regard to the Local Government Bill I cannot for the life of me see how this measure can be regarded as controversial. Certainly there is no Party interest involved in it. Some questions might be raised with regard to the matter of the representation of local authorities or perhaps the setting up of parish councils but with regard to the other matters all we are doing is bringing the law into line and removing doubts that existed. With regard to the St. Laurence O'Toole Hospital Bill, the position is that the Bill was introduced into the House last March; its Second Reading was passed on the 24th April without a division; it went on to the Committee Stage on the 9th May and was again taken up on the 22nd May in Committee. The main contentious amendment had practically been disposed of so far as I am aware. In addition I might point out that there had been a good deal of consultation with the representatives of the local hospitals and I felt certain that I had satisfied these representatives of the local hospitals on the points raised. The question of the site was a matter that could not be settled but they were satisfied with the assurance given that every aspect of that matter would be carefully gone into and considered before any decision would be taken by the Local Government Department on the matter of the site. I am not prepared to tie myself down to any particular site but every relevant matter will be considered.
Might I suggest, before a decision is taken that the Local Government Department would, at least, discuss the matter with us outside the House and we may be able to arrive at a modus vivendi? The Minister naturally takes his view as we take ours. I do not doubt that in a short conversation outside a modus vivendi could be arrived at. At this juncture it is desirable that matters that may raise any sort of controversy should, if possible, be avoided, but if it is impossible to avoid them and if it has got to be done it has got to be done.
So far as the St. Laurence O'Toole Hospital Bill is concerned I want to point out that my recollection is not at all in accordance with the recollection of the Minister— he said that the Bill passed the Second Reading without a division. That is not my recollection.
It is my recollection.
That may be so but it is not mine. As regards the second point, in this matter I might say that the Parliamentary Secretary is the Minister and he has not agreed with anybody as regards the site. In respect of this Bill the Parliamentary Secretary is the Minister and he has laid it down that the present site of the Richmond Hospital is not to be the site of the St. Laurence O'Toole Hospital.
Oh, no.
Well, our recollection is again at fault.
The present site is not excluded.
I gathered it was. Now, as far as that Bill is concerned, on that point there are two questions at issue, (1) the site and (2) the constitution of the board. I have not been in touch with anybody in connection with the hospital since the Third Reading and I am satisfied that no matter what the particular board may be or what the Government may do the people affected, the people of that part of the city, want no site but the present site. I submit that point to the Minister. Does the Minister agree with that? I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that the present constitution of that board was perhaps the best of any hospital in the country at the present moment. Now as regards the other measure our objection to it was from a different angle. It is quite true with respect to the Local Government Bill that from the political angle the present is not the time to consider it. It is not because there is political controversy in connection with it but rather that it was introduced at a time which was unsuitable having regard to the circumstances that exist in Europe and that, therefore, the Bill would not get that close consideration which a Bill of that kind ought to get. I was not aware that there was anything controversial in the Bill.
I do not know.
On the Second Stage there is one thing the Minister might be able to settle and that is with regard to the position of the Local Government officials. That matter might be settled and if that were settled it is quite possible there would be no objection to the Bill as such except the point made by Deputy Brennan—that this was not the time for considering a Bill of that sort-With regard to the St. Laurence O'Toole Bill, I want to say again that I am in disagreement with the statement made by the Minister—that it passed the Second Reading without a division; secondly, that the Parliamentary Secretary who is the Minister in this Bill said he would not accept the present site and thirdly, that he is going to have three boards—the present board, No. 2 board and the elected board.
I want to say that in respect of the Local Government Bill it represents a divergence of viewpoint in respect of what is the best method of local government in this country. To that extent it may be said to be on an entirely different plane from the scheme of management for the hospital. I have been strongly opposed to the scheme of municipal government envisaged in the County Management Bill and apparently envisaged by this Bill. I imagine that at the present moment the Government will be anxious to avoid anything controversial in the matter of local government. Nobody bothers about this Bill but the officials of the Local Government Department. If at the present stage of the world they can find time to discuss that I envy them their complacency of mind.
Hear, hear.
I understand that it is not the intention to hold local elections this year—is not that so?
I am bringing in a Bill giving power to hold local elections at a later date. As the law stands at present they must be held not later than the 30th September. The power I am taking is to hold them at any time before the 30th September 1941.
That is a reasonable sort of Bill and it embodies a viewpoint with which we are in agreement. It may not be possible to hold them before that date, not even then. But would the Minister treat himself to an extensive flight of imagination and tell us why it is necessary to pass this Bill now if it is not intended to hold local government elections before September, 1941? I am aware that some people have an excessive sense of tidiness in this matter. I strongly urge the Minister not to proceed with this Bill. I have tried all the time to get a discussion outside the House. There is no need for this Bill if it is not intended to hold the elections before September 1941.
We could take it this day week.
On what date is it proposed to adjourn the Dáil?
As soon as possible, but if we get on with Bills like this then it will be a different matter.
Could the Minister undertake to leave the date for the adjournment of the Dáil for a discussion outside the House?
We will leave that for discussion to somebody else.
Mr. A. Byrne
I suppose we will read all this in the newspapers to-morrow, but I want to say that we Deputies in the back benches cannot near a word of the conversation that is going on between the Front Benches. I should have thought that the Front Bench would have raised their voices and let us know what it is all about.
Could Items 7 and 8, Local Government Bill, 1940, and St. Laurence O'Toole Bill, 1940, be put down for this day week?
They have been ordered for to-day but need not be taken to-day.
Perhaps it might be better to leave them as not taken to-day, in case we meet to-morrow, but I do not suppose we will.
And a discussion in the meantime.
Ordered accordingly.