The Deputy realises that Section 4 hangs on Section 3 and if Section 3 falls, Section 4 will fall.
Local Government (Dublin) (Temporary) Bill, 1948—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 and 2 put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move:—
In sub-section (1) to delete all words after "expire" in line 32 to the end of the sub-section.
I indicated on the Second Stage of this Bill that I would propose this amendment. There were other features of the Bill that I took some exception to, but I decided on consideration, in view of the fact that the Bill had the approval of the House as a whole, to limit my amendments to these two set out in the Order Paper. I feel that the Minister should accept this amendment because it goes no further than to say that this temporary Bill will expire on 30th June, 1949, and I have very little doubt that before the 30th June next amending legislation dealing with the County Management Acts will be brought before the House by the Minister. The Minister objects to this amendment on the grounds that he would only act reasonably with regard to the extension of the period provided by sub-section (2) of this section. I want the Minister to realise, however— and I am quite sure that the Minister does realise it, and that if I had time to look up the debates of this House I would find support of the idea in the Minister's own speeches when he was a Deputy—that authority given in this House is not given to a specific individual, and while the present Minister might—in fact, he would, I am sure— if the responsibility fell upon him, interpret and deal with this matter in a reasonable way, I am not satisfied that some other occupant of his Ministry would act in the same reasonable fashion. It is entirely on a matter of principle that I am raising this amendment as an objection to this form of legislation which puts forward a temporary Bill, which is admitted to be a temporary Bill, with its lifetime limited to end on June 30th, 1949, but yet within that Bill is contained power for the Minister before the 30th June to extend the Bill for a period of six months and prior to the expiration of every six months' period after that the Minister has the right for the time being by Order to extend that period. It is all very well to say that sub-section (2) (d) provides that this House or the Seanad may by resolution annul any such Order, but that, I think, is an objectionable form of legislation.
This Bill is going through the House in a very short time; it did not occupy more than half an hour yesterday and it will not occupy that time to-day, so the amount of time expended by the House in consideration of it will not be very much. I say that it is entirely due to this House and to our Parliamentary institutions that any power to extend legislation should be reserved by this House for itself and should not be vested in any Minister whatsoever. This temporary provisions Act, as it is now framed, could continue for the next ten years and might continue for the next ten years. That is objectionable and it is particularly objectionable in circumstances where there could be a change of Ministers in the next year, two years or three years. I am asking the Minister now to take that power, power that might be abused by a successor of his, power that the House is giving him, up to the 30th June next and if by that time he has not been able to introduce legislation that will command the respect of this House regarding the County Management Acts, I think that this House would generously give him the additional period he would require. I want the power of extending legislation to be vested in this House alone and jealously preserved for this House alone. Because of those reasons and on principle, as I hope the Minister will understand, I put down this amendment.
As the Deputy points out, the effect of this amendment, if it were agreed to or carried in this House, would be to terminate the services of the chief executive officer at the end of next June so that the services of that officer could not be retained one single day longer. I may say at once that I would like to accept this amendment, but in this matter, as I was bound to, I consulted my colleague, the Minister for Health, and the difficulty is to indicate in this Bill a definite date by which the reorganisation now in progress would be completed. It might be that the acceptance of this amendment would not exactly be a service to the principle that Deputy Palmer, I have no doubt quite sincerely, subscribes to and which in a general way I share. In saying that I mean that the period required may not be quite as long as a later date that could be put into the Bill.
I think there is a reasonable hope that the important work now in progress will be carried out during the time provided for in the Bill. I believe that that is the earnest hope and desire of the Minister for Health, as it is mine. I think, however, that, in such circumstances, it is pressing the matter too far to ask for the acceptance and embodiment in the Bill of the amendment which the Deputy has moved. Although he does not regard them as adequate, he knows that there are certain safeguards in the Bill. The important safeguard is provided in the sub-section to which he referred—that any proposals for the extension of this measure will have to be submitted to this House, will be subject to discussion and probably subject to annulment in this House. I think that will be a valuable safeguard. I have no doubt that, if such a situation did arise, the discussions which have taken place on this measure would be extremely important and very relevant to a decision on that issue.
As I mentioned yesterday, if no proposal of this kind was now made in the way that the present Bill provides and if in two or three months—very likely before this House reassembles after the recess—the elections for membership of the Dublin County Council have taken place, the elected members will be in no different position from what they will be under this Bill. They would then have to come into the Dublin Board of Assistance and find that actual executive decisions would be reserved to the assistant county manager, or the county manager, whoever the responsible officer would be. I am as anxious as any Deputy to have the future programme of legislation with regard to local government brought before this House as soon as it possibly can be brought. More and more, and in a very detailed way, I have become familiar in the last few months with what a slow process the preparation and subsequent introduction of legislation is. Therefore, I could not say at the moment when it will be possible to have such proposals ready. I want again to emphasise that it is my desire, and I feel the desire of a very large majority of the Deputies, to have such proposals put before the House as soon as possible. I will undertake to do that as soon as possible and I regret that, in the peculiar and particular circumstances of the situation, it is not possible for me to accept the amendment submitted by Deputy Cowan.
This is entirely a matter of principle. I made it clear in the few words I said in support of the amendment that, if the Minister were to come in here before 30th June, 1949, and ask for an extension of this period, this House would generously give it to him in a few moments. Therefore, the point the Minister makes that the chief executive officer's functions would expire on the 30th June has no validity, because if the Minister is prepared to come before the House and ask for the extension this House would generously give it to him. I feel that the principle of giving power to somebody outside this House to extend legislation and reserving to the House the right to annul that legislation afterwards is completely contrary to the principles of Parliamentary Government. Although I am only one individual, I will fight for that principle every time it comes before the House. I shall try so long as I can to guard jealously the right of Parliament. I am very sorry that in making that point I have not had the support of more Deputies. Every time we do something like this we create bad precedents and these bad precedents multiply and mount up until we shall find in the years to come that we have given away our rights as a Parliament.
The Minister says that he hopes to have this reorganisation carried out by the 30th June, 1949. I accept that as the Minister's intention and the intention of the Minister for Health. I feel so much about this matter that I would be quite prepared in this Bill to give the Minister until the 31st December, 1949, or even until the 30th June, 1950. I would give any precise date for which the Minister would ask. I am quite prepared to agree to that so long as we do not accept the principle that a Minister can extend legislation himself. I want the Minister to realise that I am arguing this matter on principle. I will give him any specific date he likes to put into the Bill, but I must oppose the authority he is asking to give himself and the Minister for Health power to extend a temporary Bill.
I have a large measure of sympathy with Deputy Cowan's point of view. With all due respect to Deputy Cowan, this is a type of thing which has been fought in this House many times before. I suggest to Deputy Cowan, however, that he is exaggerating when he says that the power reserved to this House in paragraph (d) of sub-section (2) is not enough. In fact it is. That is something which we have had to fight for on several occasions and on every occasion, when the House showed such a desire, the Minister concerned always gave way. I can see Deputy Cowan's point that the other way is preferable. It is, up to a point.
The matters concerned in the Bill are quite irrelevant to the point I am discussing. But if every Bill that we pass is to be put on the lines that Deputy Cowan suggests, there is a probability that the House will become seriously overloaded with legislation. That, I would think, would be particularly true in this case where the 30th of June, 1949, comes within the financial period of the year. I think the House as a whole would agree that anything which might be considered in any degree unnecessary coming in at that time of the year should be avoided. It can, however, be said for Deputy Cowan that, as far as I know in the case of any of these 21-day Orders that have been made under other Acts, they have just been made and neither House of the Oireachtas has paid very much attention to them. There may have been exceptions but they are very few and far between. It would seem, however, as if both Houses of the Oireachtas were inclined to ignore their rights. That is one point of view and another point of view is that in the past, no matter how pretentious the various Acts may have been, the Orders made under them which were safeguarded by the 21-day rule were so framed as not to infuriate either House into taking immediate action. I think Deputy Cowan will probably find that the very fact that paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of the section is there would prevent the Minister from doing anything to which any section—or even Deputy Cowan himself—could take exception at the time. The Minister would, I think—that paragraph being there—be bound only to extend the time here if he had a sufficiently good reason to come before the House in the way Captain Cowan suggests.
The Bill as it stands gives the safeguard and prevents any possible waste of Parliamentary time. Therefore, I would suggest to Deputy Cowan that he should not press the matter. I think it is very valuable that he should have raised the point and that every time wide powers are given to a Minister on a Bill the point should be raised in the House so that it will be impressed upon the Minister concerned that the powers he proposes to take are noted by the House. However, when the safeguard is present in the section, I do not see that it requires any operation in force further than to draw attention to the matter.
I feel that in enunciating a principle Deputy Cowan has, to a certain extent, misapplied it. Let me say that I, like himself, am an absolute supporter of the principle that Parliament should guard as jealously as possible its full legislative function. I should not like anybody to labour under a misapprehension that in supporting this Bill I, or anybody else who holds views similar to mine, am subscribing to a principle of giving the Minister any powers for the use of which he is not, so to speak, recallable to the House. This Bill has been taken out of its real perspective. It is a temporary measure to cover a certain set of circumstances and is brought about purely by the desire of the present Minister to, as quickly as possible, re-establish public representatives in control of a certain administrative function in connection with the Dublin Board of Assistance. The essence of the Bill itself is laudable and is aiming at a purpose which Deputy Cowan is seeking—as rapidly as possible to pare down the extraordinary powers of managers and the managerial system.
I would suggest that the Deputy has not read the Bill at all.
I would suggest that the Deputy should wait and listen while I give him a few more facts.
It has nothing whatever to do with paring down.
This Bill is designed for a specific temporary purpose. The only extension the Minister can make to it is for the purpose of completing other temporary purposes for which the Bill is introduced. I would suggest that Captain Cowan is being unfair to himself because he enunciates a principle that will not hold any water. The Bill is temporary in its nature and the only extension the Minister can make to it is within the confines of the temporary function for which the Bill is introduced. I happen, like Deputy Cowan, to be a lawyer but I hope a rational one and not a paper one.
So far as a question of principle dealing with legislation by Order is involved, I want to say to Deputy Cowan that I not only have sympathy with him but that I wholeheartedly support his fight against any extension or even maintenance of the system of legislation by Order which has been carried on here— certainly for the last ten or 15 years— to an increasing degree. I think, however, that Deputy Cowan is wrong when he says that the operation of the portion of the section which he desires to have deleted would enable the present Minister to extend legislation. It is only, if you like, a difference in words but it is an important difference.
The Minister does not get any power to extend legislation here in the meaning of amending legislation or extending the scope of the legislation. In this particular Bill the Minister is merely getting power to extend the time for which that particular piece of legislation will remain operative. There is not given to him here any power to make any alteration in the law. If we pass this Bill, we will pass it for reasons which now appear to us to be good. If those same reasons operate on the 30th June, 1949, as Deputy Cowan says, the Bill, if it were to be reintroduced then, would be passed without question—assuming that there was not a change of heart amongst any of the Deputies here. If that is so then this is one of the very few cases where in my opinion the incorporation in an Act of powers to make Ministerial Orders is justified. There are cases where it is justified even if it does not seem to be necessary. There are cases where it would appear to be desirable but could not be justified on any other grounds except expediency. In those cases I do not think we should sacrifice one whit of our opposition to the general principle. This is one of the cases where I believe the particular section in the Bill is clearly justified because the Order to be made by the Minister is not altering legislation; it is not amending legislation; it is not extending legislation in the sense that there is going to be any change or alteration in the legislation. It is merely continuing legislation which we are freely, if we pass this Bill, enacting.
In addition, there are safeguards about which Deputy Sheldon and the Minister have spoken. There is the additional safeguard in this Bill that the matter is not at the discretion of one Minister. The Minister for Local Government cannot make the Orders referred to without the consent of the Minister for Health. We have, to some degree at any rate, an additional safeguard from the ordinary run of legislation where this section is used.
I should like to comment on some of the observations which have been made. Perhaps I was unfair to Deputy S. Collins when I said that he had not read the Bill. This Bill does not give any power to a local authority, nor is it connected with that. The main function of the Bill is to provide that under legislation already passed, when the Dublin Board of Assistance is established democratically, the managerial functions will be exercised not by the assistant city manager or the manager provided by statute, but by the present commissioner who is being appointed under this Bill as the chief executive officer. I think the Minister will agree with me that substantially that is the purpose of the Bill so that there is no question whatsoever of giving democratic rights to anybody. It is a matter of providing that executive responsibility will be exercised by either the present commissioner or some other person appointed by the Minister during the period this Bill is in existence.
As far as I am concerned, there is no question of taking the Bill out of its perspective at all. That is the purpose of the Bill and that is what I am criticising in the Bill. It is temporary to the extent that we say here that it will end on the 30th June, 1949. At the same time we are giving power to the Minister to extend it by periods of six months in secula seculorum. The present Minister may not be in office in secula seculorum.
Mr. Murphy
God forbid!
If I were satisfied that he would be in office for that length of time I might probably be agreeable to forgoing the principle in this case. But I am not satisfied and I do not want to give these powers to any Minister in the future. It is for that reason I am fighting this on a matter of principle. Deputy O'Higgins dealt with the Bill. Deputy Sheldon dealt with the safeguards contained in the Bill. But, once we reverse legislation and take away from this House the right to make legislation, give to the Minister power under existing legislation and reserve to ourselves the right of annulling that, then we are surrendering some of our rights as representatives in this House. I cannot prevent Deputies surrendering these rights but, as an independent Deputy, I can fight for these rights and I hope that at some future date, I shall have more support than I appear to have to-day in respect of that principle.
Mr. Murphy
I feel in a rather strange position in connection with this whole matter. It is a fact, as the House has been reminded, that this Bill arises directly out of my desire to restore to the elected representatives of the people the free exercise of those powers that I believe they should have. To that extent, it is definitely associated with county management and the control of public affairs by the elected representatives of the people. It arises out of my desire that the people should have those powers as quickly as possible. Yet, it would appear that an effort is being made to put me into the position of opposing the giving of those rights to the people and of retaining by this expedient certain powers that in the ordinary way should be given to the people. That, of course, is not the fact. I have already tried to make the facts of the position abundantly clear. Let me restate the position. There is, as is generally agreed, a very important scheme of reorganisation going on in the Dublin Board of Assistance at the present time. That scheme is important and far-reaching. I want that operation to conclude as rapidly as possible but I must have regard to the scheme that is being evolved there and to the fact that it must be brought to a full and successful conclusion. I cannot, therefore, be reasonably expected to name a date upon which the chief executive officer there should know that he would have to clear out. In fact, the chief executive officer will have almost 11 months from to-day in which to undertake to complete this work. He will have possibly six months from the time that the local elections are held, whether they are held in September, or earlier, or later. I do not desire that this work should be delayed for one day longer than is necessary.
No matter how great my anxiety is for the restoration of the powers that the elected representatives should, in my opinion, have, I do not wish to take the responsibility of taking any decision here which would have any serious effect towards limiting the work of reorganisation that is being undertaken. I hope this work will have been completed by the date provided. I assure the House—and, in particular, the Deputy—that while, generally speaking, I agree with the principle he has laid down, it must be apparent to him that in the circumstances of this particular situation certain accommodation will have to be given in order that there may not be a conflict with a very important work, a very important principle, a very important scheme which is now being brought to fruition in St. Kevin's Hospital. I must, therefore, with regret decline to accept the amendment.
The Minister in his last contribution has overlooked one fact. When he introduced the Local Government Bill to provide for the elections in County Dublin and in County Kerry, he omitted the powers to set up this Dublin Board of Assistance. It was this House—Deputy Larkin, a number of other Deputies and myself—which insisted on provision being made in that Bill for the establishment of the Dublin Board of Assistance. The Minister at that time explained that it was the Minister for Health who wanted to carry out this scheme of reorganisation and he indicated that a Bill, such as the one he has brought before the House now, might have to be introduced at a later stage. In the Bill which has already been passed there were amendments which were accepted by the Minister. What this Bill does is to continue what the Minister for Health wanted—that is, to maintain the commissioner in the Dublin Union but to maintain him as a different functionary from what he is at the moment. It is no more and no less than that. For that reason I think a period up to the 30th June would have been sufficient.
Is the Deputy pressing the amendments?
Better put it.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Does the Deputy wish it to go to a vote?
I understand that I would need five Deputies to support me if it were to go to a vote.
I can record the Deputy as dissenting, if he so desires.
I am content with that.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Sections 4 and 5 put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I accept the assurances the Minister has given, here and elsewhere, that he does intend to modify the county management system at the earliest possible date. I would ask the Minister if it is at all possible to bring in that modification before the 30th June next, so that there will not be any objectionable extension of the Bill by Ministerial Order.
Mr. Murphy
I can only say, as I have already indicated, that I hope it will not be necessary to have any extension of the provisions of this Bill. I cannot say that definitely, and I feel sure the House will understand my difficulty in giving any positive assurance. I can only say that I hope, with the Deputy, that it will be possible to do as he suggests.
I want to remove one other misconception from the minds of Deputies, arising out of some observations the Deputy made before the decision on the amendment was taken. He suggested that the Bill as originally introduced did not contemplate the appointment of the Dublin Board of Assistance. That is entirely a misconception, and I attribute it to the Deputy's lack of knowledge of the machinery of local bodies—and I say that without any disrespect whatever. The election of the Dublin County Council implied and automatically carried with it the election of the Dublin Board of Assistance and the proposal was modified only when it was brought to my notice by the Minister for Health that this reorganisation scheme was in progress and that he desired that it should be completed before the board would be in a position to utilise the powers that, to some extent, they may not be able to utilise while this work is in progress.
The Minister will agree that he did accede to the suggestion of the Minister for Health and that it was by an amendment of this House that provision was made for the setting up of this democratic body?
Mr. Murphy
The Deputy is shifting his ground, and not for the first time.
He is not shifting his ground.
Question put and agreed to.