Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 May 1943

Vol. 90 No. 3

Vocational Education (Amendment) Bill, 1943—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Tairgim: "Go léightear an Bille den dara huair."

Is é is cuspóir don Bhille seo leasú do dhéanamh ar fhorálacha an Achta Ghairm-Oideachais, 1930, maidir le híocaíocht do Bhaill na gCoistí Gairm-Oideachais ar son an chostais taistil bhaineas le freastal ar chruinnithe na gCoistí. In Alt 22 agus sa Dara Sceideal den Acht sin atá na forálacha seo, agus údaruíonn siad íocaíocht as costas taistil "ó chomhnaidhe oifigiúil an bhaill go dtí ionad an chruinnithe", do réir ceithre pingne an míle slí ar bhóthar iarainn agus cúig pingne an míle ar bhealach ar bith cile. B'íonann sin agus nach raibh íocaíocht le fáil ar son costas taistil abhaile o ionad an chruinnithe agus nach rabhthas ag fáil ach leath an ráta seo thuas ar son an turais go léir.

Ina theannta sin, ní raibh costais ar bith iníoctha go dtí tar éis an 30adh de Mheitheamh gach bliain, agus sin féin ar choinníoll gur freastaladh cúig cruinnithe ar a laghad sa bhliain a chríochnuigh ar an dáta sin. Bhí na coinníollacha sin ró-chruaidh o thús; tá siad níos cruaidhe anois, mar gheall ar an staid ina bhfuil an córas iompair le linn na héigeandála agus tá sé ag sír-éirghe níos deacra do Choistí Gairm-Oideachais líon gnótha d'fháil ag na cruinnithe. Dá bhrí sin, táthar ag brath a shocrú go dtabharfar allúntas réasúnta feasta do bhaill na gCoistí Gairm-Oideachais agus na bhFo-Choistí bhaineas leo ar son costas taistil chun na gcruinnithe agus uatha sin abhaile, gan féachaint don méid cruinniú do freastaladh. Dá réir sin, is ionann forálacha don Bhille seo agus d'Alt 80 den Acht Rialtais Aitiúil, 1941, agus tiocfaidh siad i bhfeidhm an ladh d'Iúl, 1943— isé sin ar bheith caithte don tréimhse láithreach de dhá mhí dhéag lena mbaineann có-fhorálacha an Achta Gairm-Oideachais, 1930.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
Bill considered in Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

In this section there is a disqualification of membership but, so far as I can see, there is no determination as to how long that disqualification should last. Is it intended to be a perpetual disqualification? If so, I suggest that that be more clearly indicated.

This is a continuance of the provisions in the 1930 Act, Section 22, sub-sections 5 and 6. They are not in the Local Government Act of 1941, although we have taken them from the Local Government Act of 1925, Section 63. I am advised that the position, as regards these provisions, is that such complete powers are now given to county managers under the Local Government Act of 1941 that it is felt they will make ample provision and ample safeguard to see that only proper claims are submitted and that only expenses actually payable are claimed. That is the position as regards the main Local Government Act. We have considered it necessary to continue those provisions, as they have been there before. I have no experience of any cases coming up under them, but would like to assure the Deputy that they are merely a continuance of provisions that have been in the existing legislation since 1930.

The Minister has given a very full answer to a question I did not put. On a further reading of the Bill, since he rose, I have discovered that the answer is in the Bill. All I said was that there is a disqualification. I asked whether it was perpetual or for a term. I see now that the section says "Shall thereafter be disqualified", and I presume that means perpetual disqualification.

I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that question at the moment.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share