Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Dec 1954

Vol. 147 No. 11

Supplementary and Additional Estimate, 1954-55. - Local Government Bill, 1954—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Amendment No. 45 not moved.

Section 55 put and agreed to.

SECTION 56.

Section 56 put and agreed to.

Section 57 put and agreed to.

SECTION 58.

Question proposed: "That Section 58 stand part of the Bill."

Major de Valera

It would be helpful at this stage if the Minister could give us some more concrete information as to what the purpose of this section is. This is the section by which one local authority can be asked to perform the duties of another. It is important in this connection to know exactly what the Minister visualises, what he wants to effect by this, what are the problems that made such a section as this necessary. The opening sub-section states the conditions under which the section would apply, that is, where:—

"(a) a local authority are of opinion it will be more convenient that any power, function or duty which may be exercised or performed by them should be exercised or performed, whether generally or in a particular case, by another local authority, and

(b) the other local authority are able and willing so to exercise or perform the power, function or duty."

It is only in those two cases, on the face of that section, that any transfer of duties or powers can take place, and I take it that is what the Minister is concerned with?

Mr. O'Donnell

That is all.

Major de Valera

It is purely a voluntary matter?

Mr. O'Donnell

Yes, or by agreement.

Major de Valera

Would the Minister say what particular type of problem has given rise to the necessity of this section?

Mr. O'Donnell

Particularly roads.

Major de Valera

That would be the roads of a boundary.

Mr. O'Donnell

Yes, and the Local Works Act.

Major de Valera

So long as the Minister states what I am interested in, that it is purely a voluntary thing——

Mr. O'Donnell

Yes, definitely.

Major de Valera

In other words, it is a matter of freedom for them to contract in this matter. Thereafter it is a question of the position of the employee. In regard to employees this relates us back to Section 7 in this Bill with which we have already dealt. This provision in Section 7 made it mandatory on the part of the officers of the local authority to perform the duties of another local authority, and the Minister at this stage pointed out that if he had not some such provision as Section 7 that Section 58 could be completely defeated. I think the Minister undertook at that time, at our request, to introduce an amendment which would amend Section 7 to restrict the imposition of duties on an officer to duties appropriate to him. But there is a little bit more than this in it. In the case of this section if a local authority undertakes powers and duties or some duties on behalf of another local authority and these substantially affect the burden of the work which the officers of that authority have to do, I think there is a problem there that it is only right we should look at now. It is not in the section but it arises on this section.

The provisions of Section 7 are quite all right in regard to the local authority from the point of view which the Minister took but we are back here under Section 58 to this question: where is the point which determines the reasonableness of asking, say, a county engineer or some other officer to undertake work in addition to the work which he would normally have to do? How far can this section mean a variation of the terms of the employment of people who are already employed by local authorities under contract, and variation in the sense of deterioration in the conditions of employment from their point of view? A lot of that argument could be merely academic and if pressed could be unreasonable as the Minister pointed out when we were arguing on Section 7. On the other hand, there is a residue there of possibility where these people could suffer grave injustice and it could particularly arise where there would be a load put on over and above what would be the normal work of the engineer or the other officer in the particular case.

On the wording of the section it does not seem to be a matter for amendment within this section itself but it does appear that, say, in Section 7 or some other section some safeguard for these officers should be provided. There is a further point in this and perhaps I would speak somewhat differently to the members of local authorities in this matter: this Section 58 as it is drafted is a section which is conferring powers on the local authority and in so far as the powers are conferred there rather than on the central authority it is a good thing. But this transfer of work is to be a reserve function in effect. The agreement to do so depends on the free contract of the two local authorities and it is one of those matters where a contract is to be made by the local authority rather than by the manager as a reserve function. In that case there is always a certain amount of danger that the question of overloading an engineer by attaching more labour and duties to a particular office than were envisaged at the time of the contract could arise. That is a matter which should be noticed on the passing of this section. It seems perfectly reasonable that the section itself should be given. In view of what I have said an amendment, in further consideration of Section 7 on the Report Stage, is indicated.

Mr. Briscoe

I take it that the section we are now discussing is one which because of the fact that it is under what is called a reserve function will go further than just, say, roads. Take, for instance, the case of the City of Dublin. Recognising that quite a number of Dublin citizens go for holidays for periods to seaside resorts adjacent to Dublin City but not actually in the city area, the Dublin Corporation has agreed with the county council when the two bodies met over the extended area that in order to facilitate the provision of amenities for Dublin City citizens at seaside resorts outside their own jurisdiction, they would provide, for instance, water from the Corporation reservoirs and they would arrange for a certain amount of water even for citizens of the county. That work— by arrangement, by discussion or agreement—would be done by the officers, say, of the Dublin City organisation.

I do not read into Section 7 anything that is likely to be dangerous in connection with this particular section because obviously if the city authority agrees to do certain road work or water work in the adjacent territory by agreement or by arrangement, it is obviously our own officials who will have to do that work. There is, however, sometimes a discussion that, as distinct from the officials and servants, the neighbouring body might suggest that for unskilled work, and so forth, persons living actually in the area where the work is being done or what is described as the weekly wage earners should be employed from that area.

But that is all a matter of agreement between the two bodies and it is not similar—I think what Deputy de Valera had in mind is what I have also in mind—to the objection we had in discussing under another section the power—if you like—of the Minister to direct an official of one local authority to operate, not necessarily in a neighbouring local authority area but maybe far beyond that. And even if it was in a neighbouring area it might not be work or duties of the nature that Deputy de Valera has referred to. So far as I can understand the section, once the reserve functions are preserved, once it is a matter between the whole body and agreement is reached, I do not think there is any great objection to this section.

Mr. O'Donnell

The arguments advanced by Deputies de Valera and Briscoe are arguments which could be advanced and were advanced by them on Section 7 of the Bill, a section which has been passed. Their main concern appears to be that an officer of a local authority may be asked to do work for another local authority from which he receives no remuneration.

Mr. Briscoe

That is not the point.

Mr. O'Donnell

I think that is the main point that Deputy de Valera had. That is the point on which I referred the Deputy to Section 7 which has been accepted by the House. The Deputy should also bear in mind that under Section 10 of the 1941 Act an official has the right of appeal to the Minister if he is displeased with the duties assigned to him by the mutual agreement of any two local authorities, his own employer and another local authority. He has the right of appeal. He is also protected by Section 19 (2) of the present Bill which enables different rates of remuneration to be fixed for different offices of the same grade. That gives him certain protection, but, as Deputy Briscoe says he does not see a lot of objection to the section as it stands, I do not propose to delay the House further by discussing it.

Section 58 agreed to.

SECTION 59.

Amendment No. 46 not moved.

Mr. O'Donnell

That amendment is not being moved on account of the deletion of Section 25.

Section 59 agreed to.

Section 60 agreed to.

SECTION 61.

Mr. O'Donnell

I move amendment No. 47:—

In sub-section (2), page 25, line 6, to insert "notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of the powers under which they were made" before "and".

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that standing orders made by local authorities before the passing of the Bill will not prevail over regulations made by the Minister.

If this amendment were not made the position which I have referred to might arise, because while it is specifically provided in Section 61 (1) of the Bill that standing orders made after the passing of the Bill may not provide for proceedings, the regulation of which is provided for under the Bill, it is provided in sub-section (2) that standing orders made before the passing of the Bill shall continue in force. These two provisions taken together might be interpreted to mean that the local authority's standing orders made before the passing of the Bill were to stand notwithstanding contrary provisions in regulations made by the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 61, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 62.

Mr. O'Donnell

I move amendment No. 47a:—

Before Section 62, to insert the following new section:—

Section 90 of the Act of 1946 is hereby amended as follows:—

(a) by the substitution in sub-section (1) of "the manager for the local authority may, with the consent of the Minister, appear separately at the inquiry and such appearance may be personal or by counsel or solicitor" for "the Minister may, if he so thinks proper, order that the manager for the local authority may appear separately at the inquiry", and

(b) by the substitution for sub-section (2) of the following sub-section:—

(2) Where the manager for a local authority appears separately at a local inquiry pursuant to sub-section (1) of this section, the employment and instruction of the counsel or solicitor appearing at the inquiry on behalf of the local authority shall be a reserved function.

Section 90 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1946, provides that where a local inquiry to be held under Section 83 of the Act of 1941, is concerned with the whole or part of the functions of a local authority, the Minister may, if he so thinks fit, order that the manager for the local authority to appear separately at the inquiry.

In his judgment in the Supreme Court case of McCarthy versus Cavan County Council and Minister for Local Government, Justice Lavery implied that this sub-section made it mandatory on the manager to appear at the inquiry if the Minister made an Order. The proposed amendment to Section 90 will make the manager's appearance optional.

The amendment as proposed at paragraph (b) is in effect a re-enactment of Section 90 (2) (c) of the 1946 Act. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the elected members will be the party instructing counsel if the manager appears separately at a local inquiry. This amendment arises out of the judgment of Mr. Justice Lavery in the case of McCarthy versus Cavan County Council and the Minister for Local Government, and it is merely to clarify the position.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O'Donnell

I move amendment No. 47b:—

To add at the end of the section and by the insertion in that sub-section after "in relation to the inquiry" of "(including the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by a manager appearing separately pursuant to sub-section (1) of Section 90 of this Act)".

Section 91 of the Local Government Act, 1946, provides that where a local inquiry has been held under Section 83 of the Act of 1941 and the Minister considers it reasonable that a contribution shall be made towards the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by any person (other than a local authority or other body) in relation to the inquiry, the Minister may certify that the contribution shall be made and the certificate shall specify the amount of the contribution and direct its payment to such person, by the local authorities concerned. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Minister will have power under Section 91 to direct, after a local inquiry has been held, that a contribution towards the cost and expenses incurred by a manager appearing separately at a local inquiry will be made by the local authorities concerned.

I would refer the House to the judgment given in the Supreme Court case of McCarthy versus Cavan County Council and the Minister for Local Government where Mr. Justice Lavery held that unless the limitation of the costs was made prior to the appearance of the manager at the inquiry the Minister could not limit them at a later date. This amendment enables the Minister to fix or direct the amounts to be paid after the hearing of the inquiry. It stands to reason that it is very difficult to limit the costs to be incurred prior to the holding of the inquiry because one cannot anticipate the length of the inquiry and when the inquiry is over I respectfully suggest to the House is the appropriate time to assess the costs. It is for that purpose that this amendment has been put in.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 62, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 63.

Question proposed: "That Section 63 stand part of the Bill."

Major de Valera

The provisions here are simply to set up the town commissioners as a body corporate—is not that the position? Is the Minister completely satisfied about the contract situation? The section states that the following provisions shall have effect in relation to the commissioners of a town which is not an urban district.

First it says they are in perpetual succession. They may be sued in their corporate names. They shall have a common seal. Property invested in trust by any person for the purpose of the commissioners shall become vested in them if at any time an Order is made under Section 76. The question of entering into simple contracts arises here. Is the Minister completely satisfied with the position there?

Mr. O'Donnell

I am.

Major de Valera

Who, for instance, would enter into the ordinary small contract for small things?

Mr. O'Donnell

The commissioners.

Major de Valera

Will it be necessary for them to contract under seal the whole time? They are a body corporate. They have a common seal which is explicitly introduced here now.

Mr. O'Donnell

I understand the ordinary local government law governs that.

Major de Valera

That is the point. I merely raised the matter so that the Minister may advert to it in case there may be necessity for some further power to be added here in relation to simple contracts.

Mr. O'Donnell

Ordinary local government law covers all that.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 64 put and agreed.

SECTION 65.

Mr. O'Donnell

I move amendment No. 47 (c):—

In sub-section (1), page 25, to add the following paragraph to the sub-section:

(d) the following paragraphs shall be added to sub-section (7) of the said Section 67:

Where—

(i) a member of the council of a county or of a joint mental hospital board attends a meeting of the council or board at a place less than five miles by any route from his official residence, and

(ii) a resolution by the council or board deciding that this paragraph is to apply in relation to the council or board is for the time being in force,

the council or board shall pay to the member in relation to the meeting an inclusive allowance (not exceeding an amount specified by the prescribed rules) in respect of travelling expenses and subsistence, and such allowance shall, in a case in which, apart from this paragraph, an allowance would be payable under the first paragraph of this sub-section, be in lieu of, and not in addition to, that allowance.

A resolution under the second paragraph of this sub-section may be revoked at any time by another resolution of the council or board concerned.

The passing of a resolution under the second or third paragraph of this sub-section shall be a reserved function.

This is an amendment which was approved some time ago and the main purpose of which is to provide for the amendment of Section 67 of the Local Government Act, 1946, to provide that where a county council or joint mental hospital board so decides by resolution for the payment to any member residing within five miles of the place of meeting, when attendance at the meeting necessitates absence from his home for not less than three hours, of an inclusive allowance not exceeding a prescribed amount to cover travelling expenses and subsistence in lieu of, and not in addition to, any subsistence allowance to which the member might otherwise be entitled.

The amendment arose out of representations made by various county councils, and all round the country, and it refers particularly to persons living in towns in which county council meetings are held and where they are not entitled to travelling allowances or subsistence expenses. This amendment merely provides for their subsistence.

Major de Valera

This merely provides for their subsistence in the towns where the meetings are held?

Mr. O'Donnell

Yes.

Major de Valera

Is the Minister satisfied it is a good arrangement?

Mr. O'Donnell

It is an inclusive amount.

Major de Valera

I take it any expenses paid will come out of the local authority funds.

Mr. O'Donnell

Definitely.

Major de Valera

It is the ratepayers then who will have to pay for it.

Mr. O'Donnell

Yes.

Amendment put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 48 has been ruled out of order as it imposes as charge on State funds.

Mr. Briscoe

I accept your ruling. On the section, would the Minister agree to introduce on the Report Stage an amendment to reduce the distance of five miles to one mile? I might tell the Minister, and I am sure Deputy Larkin will agree with me, that there are almost daily meetings held. Sometimes members have to attend meetings two or three times on the one day. For instance, last Monday we had a civics building meeting at 3 o'clock; we had a bridges meeting at 4 o'clock, and we had a public session at a quarter to seven. Practically all the members had to come and go twice. Some went home, but some had to go to a neighbouring inn in order to find the stamina for the next meeting. I know the Minister is anxious to get this Committee Stage finished to-night.

I am sure the Minister will agree that this is on a par with what he calls the subsistence in the country town. The City of Dublin is now a very comprehensive unit and even for a member who lives only two miles away, attending one of these meetings can almost approximate to going out of town for the day. The Minister must agree that we give the staff in the Custom House plenty to do as a result of our meetings. Will the Minister agree on the Report Stage to incorporate an amendment in similar terms to that tabled by Deputy Larkin and myself?

Mr. D. Larkin

I support the point made by Deputy Briscoe. Dublin Corporation has a very large membership and the majority of the members attend anything from one to half a dozen meetings each week. Many of them attend a meeting in the morning, go home to lunch and come back again in the afternoon. That is a frequent occurrence. The Minister may possibly say that if they do not want to incur this expense they should not go forward. Of course, these representatives go forward in order to look after the interests of the people who elect them. Some members lose time in having to get off from work to attend meetings. Some are not paid for the time they lose. People who are interested in local affairs should not be penalised because they are anxious to serve the interests of those who elected them. One particular area, near mine, covers a distance of at least four miles and a member living on the outside of that area may have difficulty. We would appeal to the Minister to consider this problem between this and the Report Stage and do something to assist these people. I have only a short experience as a Deputy but I am sure the Minister will agree that those who represent the people on the local authority give even more time to the affairs of their constituents than do Deputies.

Mr. O'Donnell

I have a lot of sympathy with the argument put forward by Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Larkin, but members of local authorities here are in an entirely different position from those on local authorities in the rural areas. We have no provision for members of urban council or town commissioners for the simple reason that most of those bodies meet at night after the day's work is done. The Dublin Corporation always meets at night.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister misunderstands the situation. The monthly meeting is usually held at night. We are talking of committee meetings, of which there are many. They meet from 11 o'clock until lunch, and from 3 until 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening.

Mr. D. Larkin

In the last five years members of the housing committee have had to attend a meeting practically every Friday morning. The same is true of the public health committees. There are, too, many subcommittees. The only meeting that takes place at night is the monthly meeting of the council, and we are not raising the position of the council here.

Mr. O'Donnell

There are two answers to that. The first answer is the obvious one. Deputies are now endeavouring to discuss on the section an amendment which covers only travelling expenses. So far as I know one can travel from one part of the City of Dublin to another for the sum of 4d. Am I right? Add 6d. to it if you wish. Make it 6d.

Mr. Briscoe

Most of us have cars, and our experience is that if we go on public business to the City Hall and leave our cars twice or three times outside the City Hall, we have to pay 1/-each time to the attendant at the public car park.

Mr. O'Donnell

On that point, I know people from rural Ireland who come to the city and who park their cars at the boundary of the city. They have to pay 1/- each to the car park attendant and perhaps another 1/- to get a bus in and out of the city.

Mr. Briscoe

They are not on public business. They are shopping or are on pleasure.

Mr. O'Donnell

Does the Deputy agree with me that any member of the Dublin Corporation can travel to a meeting for a maximum sum of 8d.?

Mr. Briscoe

Each way?

Mr. O'Donnell

Fourpence each way.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister does not understand Dublin. There may be members who would have to take two buses to get to the City Hall.

Mr. O'Donnell

What is the maximum fare you pay?

Mr. Briscoe

I would pay 6d. each way.

Mr. O'Donnell

A shilling, and the Deputy wants me to write a shilling into the Bill to give him his bus fare from his door to the City Hall. Will the Deputy believe me——

Mr. Briscoe

I am not considering myself.

Mr. O'Donnell

I agree. I hope the Deputy will not think that I am being personal. I appreciate that both he and Deputy Larkin are not speaking for themselves but for the members of the corporation generally. If I address the Deputy, I do not wish to address him in a personal way. I address him as the person who spoke on the section. However, when you think that a member of a local authority in rural Ireland has often to travel 50 or 60 miles to a meeting and has sometimes to stay overnight, you will have to agree that he is in an entirely different position from a member of the corporation travelling from Donnybrook or from the North side to the City Hall. However, I do believe that the corporation committees are numerically too large. I think that if committees were cut down—and I refer not only to Dublin Corporation but to committees all over the country —there would be less travelling expenses and less out of pocket expenses incurred by the various local authorities and we would have less taxes to pay to provide these travelling expenses. There are two suggestions which I would make to the Deputies who have spoken on this section. One is to cut down the number of committees and the second is to use buses.

Mr. D. Larkin

May I say that I appreciate the Minister's statement that he is not making any personal reference to either Deputy Briscoe or myself? There are, however, members of the Dublin Corporation who from time to time have no employment or who are employed temporarily or who are employed and paid only a labourer's rate of wages. Yet these are valuable members of some of our committees. They give their time in the evenings and at the week-ends to these meetings. On many occasions, when they may get off from their employment to attend meetings, their employers have been known to stop wages for the time they were absent. I put this reasonable proposition to the Minister. Whatever sins of commission or omission the Dublin Corporation may have been guilty of, they have not in the past been guilty of inflicting burdens on the ratepayers either for travelling or subsistence allowance because we never had any. We put the reasonable suggestion to the Minister to look at the problem and to try to do something so that if a labourer, a shop assistant or a clerk on a low rate of wages, wishes to become elected on the local council and succeeds in doing so, he will not be obliged to spend 5/- or 10/- a week travelling to these meetings and receive no refund for that outlay. The Minister says we can reduce the number of committees.

Mr. O'Donnell

The personnel of the committees.

Mr. D. Larkin

Perhaps the Minister is not aware that many of the committees consist of four or five or half a dozen people and that on many occasions it has been necessary to reduce the number of members because the people who have been appointed to these committees cannot attend them. We are not suggesting for one moment that people travelling ten, 20 or 40 miles are not entitled to an allowance for travelling expenses but we are suggesting that those who have no means or who have very little means should not be handicapped if they are chosen by the people to represent them on the local authorities. Deputy Briscoe and I are not interested in this personally but we say to the Minister that the only section on the Dublin Corporation which receives any travelling or subsistence allowance is the Mental Hospital Committee. Members of a public body who travel to Grangegorman get travelling and subsistence allowances but they can travel three times a day to the City Hall or to any other section where the corporation conducts its business and they are not reimbursed one penny.

Mr. Briscoe

I think the Minister has asked for some information and he is in need of it because the advice he has got about the procedure and membership of some of these committees is quite wrong. I have a booklet here which gives a list of various committees. We have a bridges committee consisting of ten members; a civic museum committee consisting of ten members; a civic offices committee consisting of ten members; a civil defence committee consisting of ten members; an Easter Week memorial committee consisting of nine members; a finance and general purposes committee which is composed of all members of the council; a housing committee, also composed of all members of the council; a housing allocation sub-committee consisting of about 12 members; a housing, planning and construction sub-committee consisting of ten members; a building sites sub-committee consisting of nine members; a libraries advisory committee consisting of ten members; a markets committee consisting of about ten members; a national monuments committee consisting of five members; an old age pensions committee consisting of about ten members; a public health committee consisting of all members of the council; a scholarship committee consisting of about ten members; a selection committee consisting of ten members; a swimming and baths committee consisting of five members; a town planning and streets committee consisting of all members; a traffic sub-committee consisting of ten members; a school meals committee consisting of 12 members with some outside representatives; a County Borough of Dublin Vocational Education Committee consisting of about ten members. Then we have the corporation representatives on joint boards and committees. On the City of Dublin Child Welfare Committee there are six or seven representatives.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am afraid I shall have to call the attention of the manager to this.

Mr. Briscoe

I am not finished yet. I want the Minister to know that the members of the Dublin Corporation, notwithstanding what the Custom House thinks of them, have a lot of work to do and approach their work in a responsible manner. I am not going to stand here and have the Minister, on advice from the Custom House, say that we have too many committees and too many members of committees.

Mr. O'Donnell

I never said you had too many committees. I said there was too much of a personnel.

Mr. Briscoe

He said too many committees.

Mr. O'Donnell

I do not think I did.

Mr. Sheldon

He did not.

Mr. Briscoe

If the records show that he did not, I shall apologise. Then we have the Association of Municipal Committees on which we have two members, the Dublin Board of Assistance, Dublin Fever Hospital Board, Dublin Port and Docks Board, Board of Grangegorman Mental Hospital, Haverty Trust, Irish Lights Board, Irish Public Bodies, Mutual Insurances Limited, Irish Tourist Association, Richmond National Institution for the Industrious Blind, Meath Hospital and County Dublin Infirmary, Royal Irish Academy of Music and City of Dublin School Attendance Committees.

Mr. O'Donnell

I wonder what they do in their spare time.

Mr. Briscoe

That is exactly what we would like to know and that is exactly why we want more understanding from the Custom House. I am a member of a number of committees and Deputy Larkin is a member of a number of committees. I happen to be chairman of at least seven committees. The chairman, at least, has to turn up at every meeting of his committee. We have representatives on the Adelaide Hospital, Berwick Home, Dalkey, The Charitable Infirmary, Jervis Street. The Cheeverstown Convalescent Home for Little Children, The Convalescent Home, Stillorgan, City of Dublin skin and Cancer Hospital, Hume Street. Coombe Hospital, Dr. Steevens' Hospital, The Drumcondra Hospital. Incorporated Orthopaedic Hospital of Ireland, The Incorporated Dental Hospital, Mercers' Hospital, National Children's Hospital, Harcourt Street, The National Maternity Hospital, Holles Street, Rotunda Hospital. Royal City of Dublin Hospital, Baggot Street, Royal Hospital for Incurables, Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital, St. Laurence Hospital, Sir Patrick Dun's Hospital, Sunshine Home, Stillorgan, Teach Ultain.

We have a special works committee which is operating in recent times and it has 12 members. Does the Minister not realise the difficulty, no matter how we divide up the 45, even if we put two, three, four, five and, on main committees, ten? There are only three committees where there is full membership.

Mr. D. Larkin

Four.

Mr. Briscoe

There are only four where there is full membership because these were the most important of the committees. Does the Minister think that we are not taking our position seriously? As Deputy Larkin said —I did not want to put it in that way but it is perfectly true—there are working men representing certain areas who, if they are interested in their work, as they are, when they take an afternoon off lose an afternoon's pay and we are imposing on them their car-fare as well. If they stay for two or three meetings in one day they probably have to find the means of getting a bite to eat somewhere. We have a number of these men from time to time and, as Councillor Larkin said, we have on occasions men who become unemployed but who carry on their work in the corporation.

Mr. O'Donnell

I cannot see them becoming unemployed. If they are members of these committees they are in full-time employment.

Mr. Briscoe

May I put this to the Minister to show how Departments of State regard the civic representatives? We have a national school teacher whom we decided should go with one other to a conference in Portugal two years ago. Would the Minister believe that the Department of Education have docked ten days of his salary?

Mr. O'Donnell

The Deputy had a fair pull with the Minister for Education at the time. Why did he not use it?

Mr. Briscoe

This has only arisen now.

Mr. O'Donnell

You said some years ago.

Mr. Briscoe

It takes some time. It does not matter what Minister. I am not saying what Minister.

Mr. O'Donnell

I would like to know how it is appropriate to this Bill?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not seem to be relevant to this section.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister asked for a lot of information. I hope he has got it now and that it is on the records of the House. We cater for one-fifth of the population of Ireland in the City of Dublin under our administration, and we will be catering for a lot more as things appear at the moment and 45 members are not without the burden of office. It is not an easy job. They get no salary. They get nothing. We say that the least they should get is car fare to and from their meetings if they live over a mile distance from the place where the meeting is held. That is not asking much.

Mr. O'Donnell

I hope the unemployed man that you referred to does not expect to travel in his own car.

Mr. Briscoe

I say I travel in mine. I do not know whether the Minister will allow car fare or not, but we say that this particular travelling allowance, whatever it is, should be allowed to any members of a local authority who lives beyond a mile distance from the meeting place.

The Minister has not got any picture at all, whether it has been deliberately withheld from him or whether it has been made into some kind of cartoon for him. Every one of these committees has a job to do and every one of these jobs is important and unless you can facilitate people to go to and from these meetings you will not have the necessary number there. A quorum is fixed. The quorum is always less than the membership. Sometimes it is impossible for certain members to turn up. What we are asking for here is not worth all this discussion. I thought the Minister would say "Certainly" and let us get on with the remaining sections, but apparently he is holding out against this. Why, I do not know.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Deputy does not appreciate that I could not say "Certainly" to an amendment which has been ruled out of order. We are dealing with the section, not with the amendment.

Mr. Briscoe

I wish the Minister's adviser would not throw across these stupid suggestions.

Mr. O'Donnell

I take full responsibility. I do not think that is a fair remark. I take full responsibility.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible for the Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

But the Minister gets his advice from his Department.

Mr. O'Donnell

I think that is a very, very unfair remark.

Mr. Briscoe

I withdraw it, if the Minister thinks so, unreservedly. I say to the Minister, when he is taking responsibility, that as I said at the beginning, I understand why it was ruled out and I accepted the ruling of the Chair but I am making an appeal to him now for what was substantially contained in the amendment. What does the Minister want me to do? Because the amendment is technically out of order, I am debarred from raising this appeal to him on the section to do what we are asking. It is not asking for much. I hope that Deputy Larking agrees with me in putting the case to the House.

Mr. O'Donnell

Does the Deputy appreciate the very simple point: supposing that I agree to accept this amendment to reduce the distance from five miles to one mile, that would not give one penny of travelling expenses to Dublin Corporation. It only applies to county councils. Does the Deputy appreciate that?

Mr. Briscoe

We are asking you to include Dublin City.

Mr. O'Donnell

You are doing no such thing. You are merely asking me, on an amendment which was ruled out of order, to reduce the distance from five miles to one mile, which applies to county councils and county councils only. There is no section here dealing with travel expenses for corporations, town commissioners or urban councils—no section whatsoever in the Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

Does Section 80 of the 1941 Act apply to the Dublin Corporation?

Mr. O'Donnell

No.

Mr. Briscoe

Not in any sense?

Mr. O'Donnell

No.

Mr. Briscoe

Does sub-section (4)?

Mr. O'Donnell

No.

Mr. Briscoe

I am afraid that I will have to argue that the Minister is wrong there. If the Minister reads Section 80 I think he will find that it does apply, that Section 80 includes Dublin Corporation. The Minister says it does not. It is in the amendment to sub-section (4).

Mr. O'Donnell

Is it sub-section (4) (c), you say?

Mr. Briscoe

Sub-section (4) of Section 80—to amend that.

Mr. O'Donnell

Would you look at Section 80 (1) (c)?

Major de Valera

"A local authority in respect of which an Order under sub-section (2) of this section is for the time being in force". Is that it?

Mr. O'Donnell

Yes.

Major de Valera

Is there an Order?

Mr. O'Donnell

No. It sets out there seriatum to whom it may be be paid.

Mr. Briscoe

Does not all this depend on whether or not there is an Order under sub-section (2)?

Mr. O'Donnell

It does not.

Mr. Briscoe

But the Minister could make an Order?

Mr. O'Donnell

The Deputy had plenty of scope in the time of my predecessor—his colleague—and he did not do anything about it.

Mr. Briscoe

If the Minister had been with me and my colleagues——

Mr. O'Donnell

No, but if the Deputy had been with me.

Mr. Briscoe

If you knew the amount of fighting I had to do with some of my colleagues in trying to get certain things done you would see why we have left the least to the last. Would the Minister agree that if the Order does not exist, he will introduce the Order and accordingly amend sub-section (4) of Section 8?

Mr. O'Donnell

How could I do it when we are discussing Section 65 of the Bill?

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister is unwilling.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am. I have gone a long way. The Deputy will appreciate that were I to amend this section in the manner in which he wants it done, it would apply to every town commissioner in the country and to every urban authority as well. If we want to pay them, make it a point before election time; make it one of the planks in your programme that you want subsistence allowances and travelling expenses for these people and see how far you will get.

Mr. Desmond

I want to intervene only because of a statement made by the Minister, in connection with the type of committee mentioned by Deputy Briscoe. It is only fair to say that many of these people would be connected with voluntary hospitals. Although these people are members of local authorities in the country, there is no provision, one way or the other, for giving them subsistence allowances. The Minister said that the answer to the problem was to reduce the numbers on these various sub-committees. That is where I do not agree with him. From my own experience down the country if a sub-committee is being set up and it is confined to a few members, it is the over-popular members of the various Parties who get on the committee.

Mr. O'Donnell

I did not suggest fewer members.

Mr. Desmond

Why should the position be that where you have 45 members on a local authority only a small number, say six or seven, are put on a committee? In such cases we would find that on a very important committee, carrying out important work, only a few of the over-popular members would find themselves elected. These members might be hopeless in trying to put up a case and the result is that when their meetings were reported back to the council the council would find that through the low standard of their deliberations a full day was wasted. That is why I cannot agree with the Minister that it would solve the problem if the committee were reduced. Every member on a council should be entitled to act on a these committees such as those referred to by Deputy Briscoe.

Mr. Rooney

I want to add a few words to those of Deputy Briscoe. It appears that the Minister is not prepared in this case to legislate for what has been suggested in this amendment. Everyone must realise that there are difficulties imposed on members of local authorities attending meetings of public boards. I have in mind such boards as the Cork Street Hospital on which three members of Dublin County Council are nominated. One of those members travels every week before 9 a.m. in order to be in time for the meeting. He travels 25 miles because it is approximately 12 miles to and from his place of residence. While both the Cork Street Hospital Board and the local authority concerned are prepared to recommend the payment of travelling expenses to persons nominated to act on the board, there is no legal power for the payment of expenses. The power can only come from the Department of Local Government. These members are elected to serve the public and in serving the public on various committees of a certain type they are not permitted to get travelling expenses. They are required to work just as hard as they are when acting on their parent body. The Meath Hospital Board would be another public body on which Dublin County Council members have to serve without expenses. I think all these questions have been overlooked and I think that we do not generally appreciate the heavy expenses which are incurred by members of local authorities acting on a number of these public boards for which they are elected to act in the normal way in the normal local elections. I feel that in order to rectify this position consideration should be given to the submitting of an amendment dealing with the matter at a later stage.

Major de Valera

I take it we are taking the section plus the amendment?

Mr. Briscoe

No, the amendment only, and the amendment has been ruled out of order.

Major de Valera

We have this section as amended, so to speak, so it must be before us. The Minister's amendment has introduced a question of subsistence allowances.

Mr. O'Donnell

For county councillors.

Major de Valera

For whomsoever it applies to. A couple of things arise out of the discussion. Deputy Briscoe simply made the case, as I understand his case, and I heard other Deputies support him, that this provision should, in some way, be extended to embrace the Dublin Corporation. In regard to travelling expenses, he made a suggestion which was ruled out, not by the Minister but by virtue of a Standing Order of the House. It would be competent, of course for, the Minister to introduce such an amendment here and I think that that is a reasonable request to make. The case Deputy Briscoe is making here is that the section is incomplete and that if we are amending Section 80 of the Act of 1941 and Section 67 of the Act of 1946, we could profitably amend the Act in all particulars in respect of these matters here.

First of all, I conceive there is not any great necessity for amending the section to bring in Dublin Corporation because I take it that I am correct in saying that under Section 80 (1) (c) an Order under sub-section (2) could be made to include any local authority whatsover, so there is no legislative amendment needed to cover that point, at least that would appear to be the position from a cursory glance at the section. If that is so, then it is a purely administrative act for the Miniter to go so far; thereafter it is a question as to whether or not the suggestions that have been made by other Deputies, Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Larkin, should not be considered.

I am merely saying those few words in an endeavour to clarify whatever the position is here. It seems to me that these Deputies were very much ad rem in respect of the section but whether their case is one which should be accepted is another point. In regard to the many committees that are involved in travelling expenses I doubt whether a provision such as has been suggested would materially help. However, they would be more experienced and know what the position was there. Would the Minister be able to say at this stage whether he would be prepared to extend the provisions to a body such as the Dublin Corporation on the assumption that Section 80 of the 1941 Act and Section 67 of the 1946 Act are the only two sections governing the matter? It would appear that at the present moment there is no provision for dealing with Dublin Corporation at all. Is anything being done in that regard? Is there anyone drawing expenses in that regard in Dublin Corporation? If there are not then notice should be taken of the remarks that have been made by Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Larkin. It seems to me that a simple administrative Order would meet the position and that no actual legislation is necessary.

Mr. D. Larkin

Might I point out that one member of the Dublin Corporation actually lives within the area and yet lives almost nine miles away from the City Hall?

Mr. O'Donnell

I can appreciate that.

Mr. D. Larkin

The Minister will appreciate that the magnitude of work facing the Dublin Corporation requires that if these members are to give their services to citizens, they should be enabled to attend committee meetings.

Mr. Briscoe

Would the Minister not agree to consider it on Report Stage?

Mr. O'Donnell

It does not arise.

Mr. Briscoe

Would the Minister give an undertaking——

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister has given enough undertakings in this Bill.

Major de Valera

The Minister must have been lectured.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister has passed the stage. He has reached the stage where he gives them.

Major de Valera

Who has been reading you the Riot Act since your last co-operative appearance here? Think for yourself.

Mr. Briscoe

I understand the Minister was going around to ascertain from local authorities some of their grievances, and he paid us amongst others the compliment and honour of his presence in a visit to the Dublin Corporation. We have not asked for very much yet because we are expecting great things under the County Management Amending Bill which was introduced to-day. Surely what we are asking for here is of practically no consequence. If there was a matter of high principle involved I would like the Minister to tell us about it. We are not asking for subsistence. As Deputy Larkin pointed out we are asking that where a person lives within the border of five miles from the City Hall he should be enabled to recoup the transport charge by some maximum agreed figure so that he can go to and from his work in the City Hall even if it happens to be twice a day on certain days, where he might be a member of two committees, one meeting in the morning at 11 o'clock and the other at 3.o'clock in the afternoon. Last Monday we had four meetings. I attended three of them; I was not as the 11 o'clock one. The Minister says he is debarred because no Order has been made up to the present bringing Dublin local authority within the ambit of Section 80 of the 1941 Act. It is very simple for him to make that Order and then reduce the mileage as we have suggested. I do not believe that any member of the corporation has recouped himself in regard to travelling charges no matter how far he lives from the corporation. His official residence is the residence within the area where he is elected but surely the Minister can see what we are asking is not unreasonable. I do not see why there is so much fuss. I thought we would have that settled in three minutes.

Mr. O'Donnell

I thought the same.

Mr. Briscoe

But our way.

Mr. O'Donnell

I thought the Ceann Comhairle had settled it in three minutes when he read out the amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is inferring that the Chair has allowed discussion on this section which is out of order.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister made no such inference. He said that the Chair ruled out the amendment and I accepted the ruling of the Chair. We are discussing the section as amended.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And Deputy Briscoe is correct in putting forward the points he has made.

Mr. O'Donnell

There is nobody suggesting for a second that he is not. Deputy Briscoe said he considered the matter would end in three minutes and I said that I agreed with him.

Major de Valera

The Minister is implying because the Chair ruled out a certain amendment that he has decided the issued. That is not the point at all. The Chair has not decided the issue.

Mr. O'Donnell

Of the amendment.

Major de Valera

That amendment has come from a private Deputy but there is nothing to stop the Minister moving the same amendment. That is merely a lawyer's quibbling, a technical point.

Mr. Briscoe

The Chair is not deciding the issue. The Chair decided rightly that a private member had no business——

Mr. O'Donnell

And I agreed with the Chair.

Mr. Briscoe

We all agreed and I accept the ruling without any quibbling, but on the section as amended I am asking the Minister will he take the steps in this connection. If it was perfectly in order for Deputy Davin when he was in opposition——

Mr. Davin

Do not draw me on this.

Mr. Briscoe

I want to draw you if I can.

Mr. Davin

You will sit down when I stand up.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Davin had a perfect right to ask the Minister to give increased grants to old age pensioners, to give increased wages or to give increased allowances. It is perfectly in order but we cannot introduce an amendment on which to have the issue challenged by a division. It is out of order. I do not want to appear to be obstreperous but I do not think the Minister has given a single reason that would justify his dismissing this matter as if it were absolutely of no consequence and that the members of the authority concerned had no fundamental right to request it.

I was not going to ask him to give a promise to bring this in on the Fourth stage of this Bill, but I would ask for a promise that possibly he might include it in the City Management (Amendment) Bill. The city corporation has been restored, I think, since 1928 and the membership of the present councillors will probably expire next June, and it will not concern them for longer than that period. But there will be an election in June and a new council, and even if the Minister said that this would take effect in relation to the new council—if the Minister thinks there is something in the point I am making—and says: "I am not prepared to do it on this Bill, but I am prepared to consider it for the City Management (Amendment) Bill," I think we would be satisfied with that.

Mr. D. Larkin

There is a rather peculiar contrast here. On the Grangegorman Mental Hospital Board there are 19 representatives of the corporation. They need not all be members of the corporation and some of them are nominated by the corporation. Yet, under the various Health Acts each and every member of that board can travel to Grangegorman, if they are over three miles away from their residence, attend a meeting, and get a travelling allowance. At least 12 or 14 of these members on that board are also members of the corporation. They can travel twice that distance and much more frequently to attend to the business of the corporation and they do not get any travelling allowance.

Major de Valera

Under what authority are they paid in the first case?

Mr. D. Larkin

Under the various Health Acts.

Mr. Sheldon

Mental treatment.

Mr. D. Larkin

I just want to mention that to the Minister. Surely if payment of that nature is recognised for this particular purpose for people who travel from the outskirts of the city why should not members who travel much more frequently to attend the business of the corporation be treated similarly? All we can suggest is that the matter be considered by the Minister and perhaps rectified.

Mr. O'Donnell

Let me remind the House that from this very seat in 1946 the then Minister for Local Government, now Deputy MacEntee, discussed this matter while sitting behind him was Deputy Briscoe. There was not one solitary plea made by Deputy Briscoe for payment of travelling expenses for members of the corporation. But Deputy Allen did make a plea and the plea he made was this: that subsistence or travelling allowances should be given to members of county councils who resided in the towns in which the council meets. He made that plea to the Minister and,—may I quote Deputy Allen:—

"The Minister must get his mind off the 2d. tram in the city, and the men who can get home to their lunch by means of the 2d. tram. I would ask the Minister to amend that now if he has power to do so. I think it would be a pity to spoil a good day's work. ...

Mr. MacEntee: It would be preposterous for a member of the Wexford County Councils, living in the town of Wexford, to be able to get a meal at the expense of the ratepayers. There was implied originally in membership of these local authorities the idea of personal sacrifice in order to render public service.

Mr. Allen: That may have been so 40 years ago.

Mr. MacEntee: That is so, but people are very glad to be privileged to represent their neighbours on local authorities. While I should like to do this as it does not appear to be very great, I certainly would not agree that it would be proper that people who can quite easily and conveniently secure refreshments after the proceedings of a meeting should be entitled to do that at the expense of the ratepayers. That was a fundamental principle underlying our local government law and I do not want to depart from that principle in any very significant way, in such a way as would perhaps overthrow altogether what is an essential element in it."

What Deputy Allen appealed for then is now given to the county councils under this Bill, under the preceding section. I have now given to Deputy Allen what he wanted and what he pleaded to Deputy MacEntee, for and which Deputy MacEntee, the then Minister, did not give him. So soon as I do that, we have Deputy Briscoe coming along and asking me to go further, to do something he did not even ask his own Minister to do when he was sitting behind him. I think I have gone a long way to meet the members of local authorities. I have gone a long way towards meeting them and if my successor would go the same distance on some future occasion—maybe that can be done.

Major de Valera

May I ask the Minister a question? Why does he discriminate against Dublin?

Mr. O'Donnell

I am not discriminating.

Major de Valera

He is boasting that he is going to do this for the country, but why discriminate against Dublin?

Mr. O'Donnell

I am not discriminating and I am not boasting. I am giving this to the county councils. I am not giving it to the town commissioners of any town or to any urban authorities, merely to county councils, and county councils only, and that applies to Dublin County Council members attending county council meetings.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister is making his argument now on the fact that in 1946 I sat silent behind the then Minister for Local Government, when, as he says when he quotes Deputy Allen, we had the trams and the 2d. fares. May I remind the Minister that we have no trams now and that the 2d. fare is gone?

Mr. Davin

He knows that.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is gone up to 4d. now.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister brings into that argument that it would not be fair to have Deputy Larkin and myself having refreshments at the expense of the ratepayers. We are not asking for any allowances for refreshment. Allowances do not come in. We are saying that circumstances have changed, that the City of Dublin is twice as big as it was and that some members have to travel just under five miles backwards and forwards to meetings and we say that they are just as entitled to get their travel money recouped for their duties of public service on local authorities as are members of this House who are given travel allowances for going backwards and forwards to the Dáil. I want to remind the Minister that there is no question of subsistence in this and refreshment is knocked on the head.

A Deputy

Even liquid refreshment?

Mr. Briscoe

Not even liquid refreshment.

Mr. O'Donnell

Deputy MacEntee finished liquid refreshment.

Mr. Briscoe

We are not interested in liquid refreshment at the moment. We are interested in transport and in seeing if there is any sense or reason in the Minister's argument. If I did not raise my voice in 1946 on behalf of the Dublin City Councillors, the circumstances were quite different then from what they are now even in accordance with the Minister's own arguments. The 2d. fare is gone and so is the tram and it costs now possibly 2d/- a day in fares for a member to travel from certain areas of the city backwards and forwards. As I said before, when I read out a list of the committees that are functioning, these committees are justified in their existence and if he wants to see the book he will see the number of committees and how many committees a particular member serves on. I am very disappointed that the Minister is making arguments against this request, arguments which have no basis at all in relation to the subject as we see it. I am again asking the Minister if he does not want to do it now to give us an undertaking that he will consider it in drafting the amending legislation for the City and County Management Acts. We will be content with that. I believe that if he does consider it the reactions of his own judgment will be in its favour and I am sure even Deputy Davin would guide him in the direction we are endeavouring to go because there is nothing unreasonable in what we are asking. If he gives us that undertaking, or even if Deputy Davin says he will examine it in relation to the county management (amendment) legislation, I will be satisfied.

Mr. Davin

I would nearly risk it if I thought I could stop you from repeating yourself.

Mr. Briscoe

Perhaps, even if I can provoke Deputy Davin into giving that undertaking by my persistence and repetition, I will at least have done something. Give me the undertaking and we will get on to the next section. Give me the undertaking that you will even look at it and examine it in the light in which it has been discussed here. That is not asking for much, or is Deputy Davin so hidebound to the Custom House that he is not even prepared to say——

Mr. Davin

I am not so sure that that is a fair remark.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputy Briscoe give an undertaking that he will address the Deputy as the Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. Davin

I know what Deputy Briscoe means and I know it is not true.

Mr. Briscoe

Give me an undertaking——

An Ceann Comhairle

This debate between Deputy Briscoe and the Parliamentary Secretary is not relevant.

Mr. Briscoe

I must apologise to the Chair and the Parliamentary Secretary. Unfortunately our years of association have been spread over so many years——

An Ceann Comhairle

Now repetition will aggravate the offence.

Mr. Briscoe

I do not want to repeat, but if the Parliamentary Secretary will say—even if he will nod his head— that he will examine the matter and discuss it——

An Ceann Comhairle

This sounds very like repetition to me.

Mr. Davin

On a point of order. In the hearing of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and since you came in, Deputy Briscoe has referred at least four times to the 2d. tramfare. I want to protest now against the assertion or allegation that I am tied to anybody in the Custom House. I am tied to this House in this matter and to nobody else.

Major de Valera

And tongue-tied in this debate.

Mr. Davin

Certainly not, but I would rather be tongue-tied than carry on the method of obstruction adopted by the Opposition.

Mr. Briscoe

On a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will not allow Deputies to make speeches on the pretext of raising a point or order.

Mr. Briscoe

No, Sir. The point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary——

An Ceann Comhairle

May not be discussed by the Deputy.

Mr. Briscoe

Has the Chair given a decision on that point of order?

An Ceann Comhairle

I have.

Mr. Briscoe

I did not refer to the tuppenny fare before you came in, Sir.

Mr. Davin

Of course you did.

An Ceann Comhairle

Referring to tuppenny fares is not a matter within the rules of order of this House. Deputy Corry on Section 65, as amended.

Mr. Corry

Is there anything that city Deputies see country representatives getting that they do not want to get it for themselves? That is all I want to know. Deputy Briscoe referred to travelling allowances and so forth. I would like to remind the Deputy that there is no comparison between the members of city local authorities, who have to pay a tuppenny fare, and the members of rural local authorities who have to travel 30 or 40 miles and who receive no travelling allowances. I appeal to the Minister to stand absolutely firm on this. Members of the local authorities in Cork City and Dublin City have not so far to travel. Their meetings are held at a time to suit themselves. Members of rural local authorities must leave their homes in the morning and spend the day travelling to the meeting and attending the meeting and they spend much more than a travelling allowance. I do not know what these corporation representatives are after, but I would like this matter to be considered on a higher plane, namely, that of Deputies' allowances. We will have a lot to say then.

Mr. D. Larkin

I am somewhat amazed to find Deputy Corry and the Minister seeing eye to eye. There appears to me to be some conspiracy between the rural areas as against the unfortunate people in the Dublin Corporation. I am not now referring to Deputy Briscoe and myself. I am talking about the people who are not Deputies, who never were Deputies and who never will be Deputies. It is their ambition to serve the citizens. It might be very easy for many of the people about whom I am talking to say: "All right; we will hold our meetings at night time and compel the local authority employees to come back at right." Many of the meetings of the Dublin Corporation cannot be held at night because they cover such a wide field. It would be very easy for the members to decide not to go forward. The Minister must appreciate that the members of Dublin Corporation and other local authorities are of value to the community and give good service, just as much as their opposite numbers on the county councils, perhaps more so than some of them on the county councils. I do not see why members of county boroughs and town commissioners should be discriminated against any longer. Possibly members of county councils and urban councils had a little more influence in the earlier years since the Minister was kind enough to inform us that a member from a rural area raised the question of their particular problem. I am very happy to have Deputy Briscoe agreeing with me on this matter. We often disagree. We disagreed very bitterly the other night and will again, I hope, to-morrow. We are appealing to the Minister to exercise ordinary common justice towards people who give their services entirely free and at some sacrifice to themselves.

Major de Valera

Can we have as a matter of information a statement as to whether any Order has been made in respect of any town or urban area? Can the Parliamentary Secretary answer that? Is anybody acting for the Minister at the moment?

Mr. Davin

I know the reason why the Deputy is prompted to put that question.

Major de Valera

I have a right to ask the question. Can the Minister give me an answer? It will clear up some point. Has any Order under sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1941 been made in respect of any urban council or any town council or corporation? That world be material information for this debate.

Mr. O'Donnell

It has been made in respect of no county borough.

Major de Valera

Had it been made in respect of any urban community?

Mr. O'Donnell

No.

Major de Valera

Has it been done in respect of any urban area?

Mr. O'Donnell

The Deputy is not going to cross-examine me in this matter.

Major de Valera

The Minister said "no" and we can always elicit this information by parliamentary question. I am merely asking it as a matter of helping in this debate and it does not help if the Minister will give irascible answers. This House is entitled to information.

Mr. O'Donnell

I have told the Deputy it applies to no urban area.

Major de Valera

Or to no county borough?

Mr. O'Donnell

To no urban area.

Major de Valera

Or to town commissioners? The Minister still jibs at the word "town". However, that information can be elicited by parliamentary question and the information will have to be given. On the other hand, I think it is hardly a helpful attitude to the House if the Minister will take up an unfrank position like that because quite obviously the answer is not frank.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Deputy does not expect me to be a walking encyclopaedia.

Major de Valera

If the Minister tries to palm me off——

Mr. O'Donnell

I do not think the Deputy should say that I have tried to palm him off. I have borne with him for about 60 hours and it is not fair to say that I have tried to palm him off.

Major de Valera

This Minister may object to these words, but the Minister has been giving answers which, as I have said, are unfrank. I would accept the Minister's attitude if the Minister said that he wanted to check on the information, but the Minister has been giving answers in regard to which I think I can justifiably use the word "unfrank". That conditions a lot of argument in regard to Dublin in this connection. There is another point—whether there was one made in connection with Dún Laoghaire borough or not is not quite material. The next point is that it is not a question of giving any one part of the country a concession at the expense of another. The way Deputy Corry approached it would be all very well if it were a question of a charge on central funds. In this case, any charges involved are charges on the local area.

Mr. Sheldon

The ratepayers.

Major de Valera

The ratepayers in Cork will not be affected. It would be very much to the point if Deputy Corry were dealing with central funds. What is being asked is to extend a certain provision to deal with members of the Dublin Corporation. I think it is not fair on the Minister's part to brush it aside in the way he has done.

Section 65, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 66.

Mr. Briscoe

I move amendment No. 49:—

In line 10, before "by" to insert "and after consultation with the Dublin City Council and the Dublin County Council".

I take it the Minister has read what is in the amendment. Section 66 deals with the alteration of boundaries of certain public assistance districts. We are involved with two other local authorities in the Dublin Board of Assistance as a district. I am dealing here with any alteration of boundaries which the Minister may make under the ordinary local government code. The amendment which it is proposed to make under the section of the Public Assistance Act of 1939 states that Section 7 should read:—

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act——"

Mr. O'Donnell

If I accept the amendment will the Deputy facilitate me with the rest of the Bill?

Mr. Briscoe

I am not going to make any conditions.

Major de Valera

Is that not an extraordinary suggestion that the Minister is ready to accept an amendment irrespective of its merits?

Mr. O'Donnell

I have merely made a suggestion.

Major de Valera

In fairness to the Minister, I do not think the suggestion came from him.

Mr. O'Donnell

I take full responsibility for any suggestions made to me.

Major de Valera

I know you take responsibility for them.

Mr. Briscoe

Does he not see the merit of the amendment? If the Minister accepts the amendment on its merits, there will be no need for me to make a case for it, but if he will not indicate that he is doing so I will make the case in detail. The following statement occurs in the Minister's own Explanatory Memorandum:—

"The Dublin, Balrothery and Rathdown Public Assistance districts are co-terminous with the areas occupied by the former Dublin, Balrothery and Rathdown Unions. The Public Assistance Act, 1939, which makes this provision does not provide for an alteration of the boundaries. Such an alteration would be necessary if existing local government boundaries in the areas affected were to be adjusted. It is proposed in Section 66 to take the necessary power to alter the boundaries by Ministerial Order."

The purpose of our amendment is that it shall be done, as the Minister can do it by Ministerial Order, after consultation with the Dublin City Council and the Dublin County Council because obviously if the Minister proceeded to alter the boundaries without any consultation with the local areas friction would be bound to arise afterwards. All that is asked is that if the Minister decides to make certain alterations in the boundaries, he will consult with the local authorities affected. Will the Minister accept the amendment on that reasoning, or does he wish me to go further?

Mr. O'Donnell

The Deputy may not be aware that it will not be necessary to provide specifically in the Bill for what the Deputy suggests. If there is to be an extension of the city boundary or an alteration of the county boundary, that is done on the application of either the city or the county authority. If it is done on their application, then they must be consulted. They are the initiators.

Mr. Briscoe

If only one initiates, without consulting the other——

Mr. O'Donnell

If one initiates, you may rest assured the other will be consulted. There is no necessity to write it into the Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

I cannot accept that for the simple reason that from time to time there may be discussion between one local authority and another over a neighbouring problem——

Mr. O'Donnell

Supposing they disagree?

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister can make whatever decision he wishes, provided he consults with both authorities.

Mr. O'Donnell

You may take it that the Minister will.

Mr. Briscoe

If the Minister will accept the addition on its merits I am satisfied but if he purports to accept it on any other condition——

Mr. O'Donnell

I am sorry I cannot accept it them.

Major de Valera

The Minister has mentioned the extension of boundaries. I take it a change in the boundary of the corporation area is done by legislation. Is that not the position? The Minister's point is that this is consequential on legislation. I move to report progress.

Progress reported, Committee to sit again.