It was suggested here yesterday that taking Section 15 first, possibly with the amendment, would expedite matters. That purpose was not achieved and I propose to take the amendment now. If Deputies have anything to say on the section, they may do so. Where is Deputy Cowan?
Local Government (County Administration) Bill, 1950—Committee Stage (Resumed).
He has gone out to his tea.
I think we can wait. I happened to be in possession yesterday.
It was in Committee. As the Deputy knows, the suggestion was that it would expedite discussion. It did not. The opportunity will be there, when the amendments are passed, to discuss the section. Nothing was achieved yesterday—possibly I should not say that— except a very useful discussion. Amendment No. 22 is in Deputy Cowan's name and I propose giving him a few minutes. Amendment No. 22 has been moved.
I think the other amendments have been moved, too.
They were to be discussed together.
A few might be discussed together— amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 26, certainly. I propose taking the amendments, as the opposite course yesterday did not get us very far. Let us have the amendments first and then discuss the section.
I think I did, in fact, move that amendment last evening, A Chinn Chomhairle. The reason we got into the section was——
I understand that.
——that some difficulty arose in regard to the actual procedure. The Minister indicated that it was the intention to abolish county officers as soon as possible and to transfer the functions to the county secretaries and, in time, all this administrative and executive work would be carried out by the county secretaries. In moving the amendment, I asked the Minister to indicate how soon it was proposed to bring about what I might term the final evolution under this particular Bill. I think that is what gave rise to the discussion then on the section.
As I understand it, the Bill provides that county managers will become county officers. In four instances, there will be vacancies and the point I want to be clear on is whether in those four instances the county secretaries will become the principle officers right away, or whether they will only be appointed to these four particular offices as a temporary measure.
Is that the purpose of the amendment?
It is. The amendment provides that if that is so, the moment there is a vacancy and there is no county officer, the functions may be transferred to the county secretary. If that is so, then my amendment provides that the county council shall make the order instead of, as in the section,
"the Minister, after consultation with the county council concerned".
That is the difficulty I am in regarding Section 15. If it is the intention of the Minister that there will be a period when any vacancies will be filled by county officers, then I know where I stand and if it is the intention that they will not be so filled, I also know where I stand, but if it is the intention that they will not be filled, then there should be no necessity for the provision already in the Bill and dealt with for the appointment of county officers by the Local Appointments Commission. However, I think the House will understand my difficulty, and I hope that if there is any further discussion on the amendment, that that difficulty will be appreciated. In any event, my view is that if we decide in this Bill to bring about that particular evolution to the county secretaries and that decision is taken now and by statute, then there is no reason why the Minister should have to consult the county council. Why should he have to consult the county council if it is the intention to do that? If it is the intention to do that and there is a vacancy, let the local authority make the order transferring the functions to the county secretary. For those reasons, I move the amendment.
Deputy Cowan argued earlier that because the Minister had agreed to the temporary appointment this ought to go on the same principle; but it is not the same principle. Section 15 relates to permanent appointments and, apart from the grouped counties, there will be other permanent officers appointed. The Deputy's proposal is that the appointment would be automatic; that the county secretary would be automatically appointed by the county council and that he would automatically step up to be county officer. That is the proposal in the amendment, and, as I have already pointed out, there are objections to that. The Minister is the man who has the sanctioning of appointments and removal from office, if a man is considered unsuitable. A man may have been functioning for ten, 15 or 20 years and he may not feel like taking on the responsibilities of the new post, even if it carries additional salary. Under this proposal, his consent is not secured— he is automatically transferred by the county council—whereas the Bill suggests what I think is a more elastic and commonsense way. In the normal course, the filling of the vacancy is a matter for the Local Appointments Commissioners. It is only in the initial stages that there is a panel from which they may draw, but, in the case of the grouped counties, it will be automatic to the extent that the county manager will become county officer in one of the two grouped counties. In the normal way, it would be filled by the Local Appointments Commission, and I suggest that the method proposed in the amendment is unfair to the individual, to the county council and to the general administration of the council's affairs. There ought to be discussions as to suitability and as to a man's desire to take the position. He ought not to be forced into the position.
Deputies will be able to envisage cases in which a man would have been functioning for quite a number of years and would not be anxious to take on these added responsibilities, even though, as I say, they might carry additional salary. The Bill provides for consultation with the county council by the Minister as to the suitability of the officer, so that in a general atmosphere of agreement the appointment would or would not be made. I can see—and I am sure every Deputy can see—that there could be circumstances in which this automatic method could be disastrous, or at least disadvantageous, and the more fluid method of consultation between the Minister and the county council as to the person whom they will have in this very responsible office and the consent and agreement of that individual would make for more effective working. There could be very poor results, and even bad consequences, from having it applied automatically. It might work in some cases and might not work in others.
I do not see what objection there can be on the part of the Deputy to having the name of the Minister included, but whether you try to exclude him or not, you cannot deny that he is the person who must say whether a man is to be removed from office. If he has the right to say that a man should be removed because of unsuitability, is there anything wrong in saying that there should be consultation with him as to the suitability of a gentleman going into a particular office? That, coupled with the fact that we believe it should not be forced on a man against his will, that he ought to be a consenting party, should convince Deputies that the proposal in the Bill is more acceptable and calculated to lead to better working than the proposal in the amendment.
The Minister is making this matter more complicated than ever. Where there is not a county manager at present the position of county officer is to be filled, so far as I can gather, by the promotion of the county secretary if the Minister is satisfied with regard to suitability, but he says further on that he is to be county secretary. Sub-section (2) of the section sets out:—
"(2) Where an Order is made under sub-section (1) of this section transferring functions to a county secretary, the Order shall provide that the title of the office thereafter to be held by such county secretary shall be ... county secretary (with the name of the county prefixed)."
To what is he going to promote the county secretary? To be county secretary, which he is already? I never saw a more cockeyed Bill in my life. He takes power to appoint county officers, and, on the other hand, he says that the county officers will become county secretaries. Which is it to be? I have a kind of feeling of envy with regard to the four areas, seeing what the position in other counties is to be under this section, and I suggest to the Minister that he take the Bill home, spend a couple of nights over it and bring it into some kind of shape before putting it before the Dáil.
If the Deputy is in doubt I might explain that the intention is to pass from the position of county manager and, if that title is essentially altered in a kind of transition period, it will eventually become county secretary. It is left to the councils that they should effect an economy by merging two offices—the county manager taking up the duties of the county secretary or the county secretary taking up the dual position of county manager and secretary under the title of county officer. That is the main principle. There could be circumstances in which the county council would feel that the work of the county was too big and that they could not afford to dispense with an officer.
Or where the pull would be too strong.
If the county councils feel that they would not be able to carry out the work on the basis of one man discharging these functions, they are entitled to apply for an assistant county secretary on consultation with the Minister, but they have the option of merging the two posts, and surely that discretion ought to be left to the county council—to make a saving, if they feel they can do so, or, if they feel that it would be necessary, they are entitled to appoint an assistant county secretary. There is nothing very illusory about that. From what Deputy Corry said last night one would think that we were going to pile additional officers on the county councils. The reverse is the fact. Two posts are to be merged and not another officer is to be added unless a county council feels that they ought to have a man to replace the county secretary. There is no additional officer in question.
I just wish to say a word, strictly on the amendment. I do not know if this is another manifestation of what Deputy Cowan would describe as popular democracy. I have many objections to the section and to the principles involved, nevertheless it is a salutary thing, perhaps, and at least a concession to the proprieties, that before the Minister exercises his powers under Section 1 he should do the council the courtesy of consulting them. Deputy Cowan, like the strong one-Party-State man that he is, wishes to brush all that aside, to have a dictator in the Custom House and, under the guise of giving the council some powers, he would make it mandatory upon them to transfer the functions automatically. Is not that a mockery, is it not merely flouting the self-respect of the council? If the Deputy is really in earnest about this, it would seem to me that the right type of amendment would be to delete the word "Minister" and say that "the council may". The Deputy has put it that the council "shall by order". They will not have any option in the matter. It does not matter whether they consider that the officer to whom it is proposed to transfer the functions is fit to discharge them or not. They simply have to carry out the obligation which Deputy Cowan would impose on them and for that reason the amendment is a thoroughly bad one.
I might suggest, through the Ceann Comhairle, to Deputy Childers, who has been making a very constructive effort to improve this Bill as far as he can, that he might advise his present neighbour to go off and enjoy a cup of tea. Since Deputy MacEntee has come into this debate, he has done me a signal honour in selecting me for considerable abuse. Obviously, a person who is attacked continuously—last night and starting off now to-day—is not a nonentity. If he were, he would not be worth so much attention from a person of Deputy MacEntee's capacity.
I put the amendment before the Minister and the House and I had no doubt whatsoever as to the exact meaning of every word in it. It was framed deliberately in that way, for this reason, that if the intention is to transfer these functions as soon as possible to county secretaries, the proper people to do it, in my view, are the local authority, the county council and nobody else. However, the Minister wants, in the way all these things are drafted, to have the power. He says: "I want to have the power to appoint and remove, and if I have the power to remove I should have the power to appoint." What precise powers of removal the Minister will have in regard to a county secretary might be considered. Obviously, he would have power under some Local Government Act in relation to any official of a county council. When he uses that phraseology, however, he is himself making the mistake of confusing the county secretary with the county manager—who is in a special place in regard to appointment and removal. The county secretary, under the new arrangement, will have vested in him or transferred to him all the functions of the county officer or, in other words, all the functions of the county manager at the moment. I think, on principle, that that is a power which ought to be exercised by the local authority, who are more capable of knowing whether their county secretary is fit for the job or not. If he is not fit for it, he should not be there at all. It is an important appointment and if he is not fit to exercise these additional functions he is not fit to be a county secretary. I am working on the assumption that he is fit and that it is the Minister's intention that this system of management, whether by managers or by county officers, will be abolished as soon as possible and that the functions will be exercised by a county secretary. I say that that is a power which ought to be exercised by the local authority and not by the Minister.
A peculiar provision in the section is that the Minister may be order, after consultation, decide this. When a county officer dies or resigns or there is a vacancy, the Minister, whoever he may be, may say: "We have codded the Dáil in passing through this County Officers Bill. We have no intention of transferring the functions to the county secretary. We will not consult them and they will have to appoint, through the Local Appointments Commission, another county officer to fill the vacancy." That is why I think this amendment is important. If members of local authorities who are in this House are not frightened off by Deputy MacEntee's great love for me, possibly they would agree that there is a lot to be said for the amendment. If the Minister is not prepared to accept it as it is written, he might put it in a way that would commend itself to all members of local authorities who understand clearly what is provided by the amendment and what is important.
The Minister says that as he has the power to remove he should have the power to appoint. It is the local authority that foots the bill and it is the people who pay it who should have the power and authority. They should not be left in the position that they "may" be consulted by the Minister if the Minister chooses to consult them. They are working every day with the county officer and know whether he is efficient or not.
The Minister says he will consult "the county council". It would be interesting to know how he will do that. Would he go down and meet them, in meeting assembled? Would some officer of his Department write a letter? Obviously, it could not be to the county secretary, to ask whether the county secretary was suitable or not. If the county officer was dead or had resigned, would the Minister communicate with some junior official or would he send down some letter to be read at the next meeting, saying he wanted the opinion of the council as to whether the secretary was efficient or not? Is that a sensible thing to do? That letter would be received by the secretary in the ordinary way. It may be that the Minister might go to the county council chairman instead. I think however that the more you consider the implications of that section regarding the appointment the more objectionable it becomes and the clearer it is that my amendment is the better amendment notwithstanding what Deputy MacEntee may say.
May I put the amendment?
I would ask you to put it.
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
Yes.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put and declared carried.
The Deputy agrees, I am sure, that amendment No. 23 is consequential. What about No. 26?
It is the same.
If the Deputy has a few words on that, it is all right, but I want to see that there will not be another full debate on it. Nos. 24 and 27 would certainly go together.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.
I think that No. 24 was to some extent consequential on the idea I had.
I think it was cognate.
Amendments Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 not moved.
No. 28 is different; I would like the Deputy's opinion on that.
I think it is cognate.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.
Before you take the section, might I make a statement?
In connection with sub-section (2) of Section 15, I should like, with the permission of the House, to refer back to the discussion yesterday on amendments numbered 1 and 2 in the name of Deputy Donnchadh Ó Briain. If the amendments were made as proposed by the Deputy to change the title of county officer to riarthóir contae and assistant county officer to leasriarthóir contae I am advised that they would have no effect unless supplemented by corresponding amendments throughout the Bill. I am also advised that the official translation of county officer will be oifigeach chontae and of assistant county officer leas-oifigeach chontae. To write these titles into the Bill as a whole would necessitate hundreds of amendments, the names of the officers being so frequently mentioned.
I have no objection to amendments which will ensure that the titles of the holders of these offices shall be oifigeach chontae and leas-oifigeach chontae and I am advised that this can be achieved by amendments of Section 8 and Section 13 (6) without consequential amendments in the remainder of the Bill. I propose to put down amendments for the Report Stage of the Bill accordingly and in connection with Section 15 which we are now discussing I shall have a corresponding amendment put down to change the title of the county secretary when the duties of county officer are assigned to him by providing that the title of his office shall thereafter be the appropriate Irish version of the title.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
Perhaps the Minister might, as a preliminary to further discussion, indicate to the House what is the significance of sub-section (9) of the section. Sub-section (9) reads:
"Where an Order is made under sub-section (1) of this section, the reference in sub-section (3) of Section 9 of this Act to the making of an appointment of a county officer shall have effect as a reference to the making of the said Order."
Sub-section (3) reads:
"Whenever the office of county officer for a county (including Dublin) is vacant, the Minister shall appoint a person to be county officer for the county until an appointment to the office is or is deemed to be made by the council of the county or, in the case of the County of Dublin, is made under sub-section (5) of this section."
I really want to know what is the effect of sub-section (9) before we proceed to discuss the section further. It is rather obscure and difficult.
Sub-section (9) links with sub-section (3) of Section 9. It enables the Minister whenever there is a vacancy in the office of county officer to appoint a person to hold temporarily the office of county officer until a permanent county officer is appointed or until an order is made under this section amalgamating the office of county secretary with that of county officer.
I am very grateful to the Minister for clearing that point up because at first sight it might be thought that the effect of sub-section (9) was to reduce all the appointments made under sub-section (1) to the status of temporary appointments, but I gather that that is not in fact the effect of the sub-section, and that appointments made under sub-section (1) of Section 15 will be permanent appointments. I trust I am correct in this interpretation.
This is a most peculiar section and I asked last night that the Minister might explain its effect fully. I say it is most peculiar first of all because it does not relate merely to group counties; it relates to all posts of county officer because it says here:—
"Whenever the office of a county officer for a county is vacant."
It is most peculiar because if we turn back to Section 9 we find that sub-section (1) prescribes:—
"The office of county officer shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be an office to which the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, applies."
Apparently it does not apply to appointments which are to be made under sub-section (1). It would look as if the real purpose of the section is by a side wind to get rid of the obligations which the Local Appointments Acts impose on local authorities and of course upon the Minister, and to vest in the Minister all power of appointment which under the Act is exerciseable by the Local Appointments Commissioners in relation to the post of county officer, and to vest power of appointment in the Minister in the case of the post of county secretary.
The Deputy might explain more clearly. I have not followed him.
Section 15 provides that where the office of county officer is vacant or becomes vacant the Minister may by order transfer the functions of county officer of the county to the county secretary of the county, and in the case of a county having one or more than one assistant county officer to either an assistant county officer or to the county secretary. I was going to say when Deputy Sweetman interrupted me that it is true that the power of appointment is limited to the extent that the Minister may only appoint the county secretary of the county or, in the case of a county having one or more than one assistant county officer, either an assistant county officer or the county secretary of the county. He has a very restricted option in the case of a county secretary and he has a choice of options in cases where there is an assistant county officer. But what is the purpose of providing in the Bill— in what might be described, if it were not for some things that have emerged in the course of the examination of the Bill, as the principal section of the Bill, Section 8, Part II—that there shall be a county officer for each county, whose title shall be county officer, and going further and providing that under Section 9 the office of county officer is one to which the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, applies, namely, that it is a post which must be filled through the Local Appointments Commission, and then going on, by Section 15, to reduce Section 8 to a farce because, under Section 15, the Minister can abolish the post of county officer by his own Order. There must be some object behind this. What is that object? So far, the Minister has not disclosed it to the House. Surely this elaborate machinery is not brought in merely for the purpose of changing the name of the post of county officer to that of county secretary.
This is an elaborate section containing ten sub-sections. Surely it is not brought in merely in order that the Minister may change the name of the post of county officer to that of county secretary, without any change in function. Note that in every case, but particularly in sub-section (1), there is a wholesale, comprehensive transfer of functions from the county officer to the county secretary. What is the purpose of this elaborate machinery for doing that? Surely if it were merely a desire to change the name, a simple section might be inserted in the Bill saying that the Minister may at any time, notwithstanding Section 8 of the Bill, change the designation of the post of county officer to that of county secretary. There must be something more than that simple operation envisaged by this sub-section. If we read it we see that the Minister—where it happens to suit him, or, shall we say, his political machine—if he thinks that he has a suitable puppet serving in one or other of these posts, can transfer, as soon as the county officership becomes vacant, the functions of the county officer to the county secretary or the assistant county secretary, as the case may be. Of course, that fortunate individual will enjoy a commensurate increase in his remuneration. That is the implication which I think this sub-section legitimately leaves the Minister open to.
Then consider the effect of sub-section (2). Remember that under sub-section (1) the Minister is transferring all the functions of the county secretary or, where there is an assistant county officer or a county secretary, to one or other of these persons, whomsoever he happens to favour. But there is no change whatever in the general character of the post. Notwithstanding that, we then find that the Minister is solemnly bound under sub-section (2), wherever he makes an Order under sub-section (1), to change the title of the office thereafter to be held by such county secretary to that of, say, the Laoighis county secretary or the Kildare county secretary or the Dublin county secretary—the geographical name of whatever county this functionary happens to operate in. We have all been intrigued, if not particularly edified, by some recent scandals that have come to light—the cases of Newtown Rock, Smiling Marcus, and so forth. Does this not seem to look like the same operation? Here we have the old horse running under a new name in order that this sort of a trick may be perpetrated upon some simple folk who follow the Minister, who think, as I think it was Deputy Cowan who thought, that some great administrative convulsive revolution in local government is going to take place by transferring the functions of the county officer to the individual who is going to be called a county secretary. Is this not all part of the sham?
So far as sub-section (2) is concerned, a really significant change is going to be made in local administration: that is the sham. The only significant change I can see which will be made by Section 15 is the one which is envisaged in sub-section (1)—that which enables the Minister, whoever he may be—and I do not want the Minister to think that I am ascribing to him and to him only the frailties to which most politicians are heir—to have a right of appointment, independent of the Local Appointments Commissioners, which he has not at present. This is, if you like, an increase, an extension of the limited powers of patronage which the Minister for Local Government makes. This power is being made in the name of democracy and of clean government. For that reason, if for no other reason, I think that this section ought to be resisted.
Deputy MacEntee, in sitting down, said that for that reason and for no other reason——
"If for no other reason."
I did not hear the "if" but I will accept the correction. The Deputy started off by saying that the Minister was taking unto himself power to appoint a county secretary and that he was taking that power away from the Local Appointments Commissioners. Of course, the Minister is doing no such thing.
That is not it.
He did say that when I interrupted him. I may say that I interrupted him because what he was saying was obviously incorrect.
It seems to me that what is being done under this section is perfectly obvious to anyone. I believe it is perfectly obvious to Deputy MacEntee, although he does not want to admit it. This section is providing that, as soon as possible, bearing in mind existing contracts of service, the positions of county officer and county secretary are being amalgamated.
That is not said here.
It is perfectly obvious that where you have in a county a person with an existing contract of service as county manager and another person with an existing contract of service as county secretary, you can only do one of two things. You can provide that they will have services to perform under the new system or you can do what Deputy Corry last night said that we ought to do, namely, throw them out on the wayside and pay them compensation for throwing them out. Deputy Corry last night told us that he believed the best thing to do was to get rid of them, to pay them what was coming to them—I think was the phrase he used—and not to use them any more. I believe that it is better for the ratepayers, when you have to pay a man by reason of his contract of service, to use him while that contract continues. It seems to me that it is perfectly obvious that that is what this section does. So long as you cannot provide to break an existing contract unless you are going to pay compensation, it is better to continue the contract and get the service rather than to pay the compensation for nothing. In this section you will get, in the only way it can be got, the amalgamation of the two offices in future.
I am not quite clear whether Deputy MacEntee was or was not following the line of Deputy Corry that it was undesirable to amalgamate the two offices. I want to suggest to other Deputies who have much wider experience of local authorities than I have—because I only have experience of a county that is one of a grouped pair of counties and where, therefore, so to speak, there is only half a county manager—that this section provides for the amalgamation of the offices of county officer and county secretary. I want to suggest that, certainly, so far as our county is concerned—and I think, from what I can gather, the same applies in other counties—amalgamation would be entirely desirable, coupled with a more direct delegation by the council to the technical officers of the council, that the two things must go side by side. One of the flaws in the existing scheme is that every recommendation of the county engineer and of the chief medical officer must go through the manager to the council rather than direct from the engineer or chief medical officer to the council. When you get that, as you get it in a later section of this Bill, you will approach the situation in a far better way. You will cut out a lot of the paper work and a lot of the unnecessary reports, referring the matter from one officer to another, that have become the bane and the nuisance of local government administration. In that way you will arrive at a situation in which it is desirable to amalgamate as soon as possible the positions of county secretary and county officer. I believe that this section does it, and I believe it is better to do it this way than to adopt the suggestion that Deputy Corry made last night, namely, to pay the people who have a contract of service compensation for doing nothing in future.
I absolve the Minister now that we have heard this section described by a legal luminary. That legal luminary was here when Section 8 of this Bill was passed by this House. Section 8 reads:—
"There shall be a county officer for each county whose title shall be .............. County Officer (with the name of the county prefixed)."
Section 9 provides:—
"(1) The office of county officer shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be an office to which the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926 (No. 39 of 1926), applies."
That means that the position must be filled by the Local Appointments Commission. The law, as already passed in Section 8, states that there must be a county officer but Section 15 abolishes the county officer and turns him into a county secretary. I do not happen to be a lawyer. I happen to be an old farmer but I have had pretty long experience of local administration and I can see the unfortunate Minister himself tied up in a knot. If, as Deputy Sweetman alleges, the purpose of Section 15 is to amalgamate the two offices into the office of county secretary, and if that is done under Section 15, you are not complying with the law under Section 8, which states that "there shall be a county officer". If, when the county officer goes, you do not fill his post but transfer his functions to a county secretary, what is Section 8 for and what is Section 9 for? I suggest that you send the problem to one of those newspapers that publish crossword puzzles and offer a prize for whoever would elucidate the problem as to what will happen when this Bill becomes law.
Under Section 13 the Minister may by Order increase the number of assistant county officers for the County of Cork. In Section 15, he is going to abolish them and transfer their functions to the county secretary. If the Minister is of opinion or if the Government are of opinion that the county secretary at present is half idle and that the county officer will be half idle and that the two of them together will do only one man's work, the Government will bear out what I always knew of them, that is, that they have complete disregard and disrespect for the ratepayers, if they continue the two of them in office. According to Section 8, the county manager will become a county officer. According to Section 15 he will disappear and become a county secretary. Which of the two will he become? Which of the two things will happen? That is what we want to know. This Bill is like something that would emerge after an all-night sitting that would not be too dry. That is the only description I can give of it. If the Minister believes in Section 15, and if Deputy Sweetman believes in it, then they are robbing the ratepayers of Kildare and every other county to the extent of the county officer's salary. If the Deputy believes that the secretary can do the work of both, why have the county officer? What is he for? What work has he to do when the other fellow goes, or when one of them goes? And when one of them disappears from the scene, how is it that one man is then going to do the work of the two, as will inevitably happen under Section 15?
Now, we have three assistant county officers and a county manager and their total salaries will be roughly about £5,000 a year, between the four of them. I do not know whether there is any more, and I am only making a rough guess. They are all pretty young men. I would not like to see any of their lives shortened. Judging by form, any one of them is good enough for ten years more, and during that ten years the ratepayers of Cork County will be asked to pay £50,000 in rates—and that is not making any allowance for the brainwaves we frequently get from the the Department of Local Government, that some fellow's salary should be doubled. In ten years the ratepayers of Cork County will have paid them £50,000. I move to report progress.
Progress reported, the Committee to sit again.