The Bill will be recommitted for the purpose of considering amendments Nos. 1, 13, 14 and 17, since these amendments introduce substantial new matter not previously dealt with.
Committee on Finance. - Local Government Bill, 1954—Report.
Major de Valera
I would like to refer specifically to amendment No. 6 and ask to have it taken in Committee. It introduces substantial new matter.
Since it arises out of Committee proceedings, there is no necessity to recommit the Bill in respect of that amendment.
Major de Valera
Very well. We can discuss it?
Certainly.
Bill recommitted for the purpose of taking amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 5, to delete lines 12 to 19 and substitute as follows:—
7. —Where, by an agreement or arrangement entered into under this or any other Act, a local authority exercise or perform a power, function or duty of another body—
(a) it shall be the duty of every officer of the local authority to perform such duties appropriate to the nature of the power, function or duty as the local authority may decide, and
(b) in case the other body is a local authority, it shall be the duty of every officer of that local authority to refrain from performing such duties appropriate to the nature of the power, function or duty as that local authority may decide.
The proposed amendment of this section follows from the amendment of Section 57 which it is proposed to widen to enable local authorities to enter into agreements with statutory bodies for the exercise and performance of certain powers, functions and duties on behalf of the statutory bodies. It is necessary to amend Section 7, accordingly, to ensure that where a local authority enters into such agreement it shall be the duty of the officers of the local authority to perform such duties arising out of the agreement as may be assigned to them by the local authority. The amendment is merely consequential on the amendment of Section 57 to ensure that agreements made between local authorities and statutory bodies can be implemented.
Major de Valera
This amendment meets the point that was made to the effect that an officer could only be asked to do a duty on his own.
On your suggestion.
Major de Valera
I appreciate the fact that the Minister is meeting it, but I am just wondering whether the actual wording of the amendment quite meets the point that I made. Paragraph (a) of the amendment says: "It shall be the duty of every officer of the local authority to perform such duties appropriate to the nature of the power..." That, to my mind, makes the word "appropriate" qualify the power, but it does not make the case quite clear—to take an extreme or perhaps an absurd example—of an engineer having to do a surgeon's work.
It is to meet such a case that we have introduced the amendment.
Major de Valera
Is the Minister satisfied that it will be sufficient in this form?
I am.
When we were discussing this Bill in Committee, and this particular section, what I was concerned about was a case like this: that a man might be given duties in two areas which were not adjacent and that, therefore, hardship would be imposed on the officer concerned. I was anxious to prevent such a situation arising.
It is a different section—Section 17 the Deputy is referring to.
I was looking at it from that point of view.
Major de Valera
If the Minister will allow me, I still feel that whereas there is an improvement there is not sufficient protection for that specific point. I have not at the moment gone back on our deliberations in Committee—God knows they were long enough —but the specific objection to Section 7 was that it said: "it shall be the duty of every officer of each such local authority to perform such duties... as the local authority under whom he holds office may decide." That was the original draft and we objected more or less in the terms that we suggested an amendment to qualify such duties by the word "appropriate" to his particular functions. In other words, the word "appropriate" unless I am reading the draft amendment amiss, seems to relate to the nature of the "power, function or duty". The amendment says:—
"Where, by an agreement or arrangement entered into under this or any other Act, a local authority exercise or perform a power, function or duty of another body—
(a) it shall be the duty of every officer of the local authority to perform such duties appropriate to the nature of the power, function or duty as the local authority may decide, and..."
Quite frankly, I do not see that that point is met there at all under this. Perhaps later on it may be qualified in another place, but within the terms of this section, while I accept this is an improvement and I have nothing against this draft as it stands in one respect, I would suggest you would also need a qualification there to the effect that an officer would only be required to perform duties appropriate to the nature of the office which he holds. There are two such things there. You see there were two gaps, perhaps, in the original draft. There is no use in going into details on it. The Minister has met one.
I would refer the Deputy to Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1941, and if I might quote the section, it is Section 10, sub-section (1) (b):—
"Every officer appointed or servant employed by a local authority shall perform such duties and be paid such remuneration as such local authority may from time to time assign to him."
Now from that there is a right of appeal to the appropriate Minister and that right will still remain in existence under this Bill—the right of appeal—and I say that in view of Section 10 sub-section (1) (b) there is no necessity to have the anxiety that Deputy de Valera has on this particular point.
Major de Valera
I accept what the Minister says, but let me, for the purpose of the record, make this clear. It is apparently ministerial policy not to accept the point I made for specific qualification. You cannot get over the fact—I am not criticising—that the Minister is not prepared to give officers the protection which we have suggested. That is a matter of policy and I can see certain difficulties. If we went into a lengthy argument on this, the Minister would no doubt say that if you put in a fine definition you would get borderline cases that would cause endless trouble. I can always see the possibilities of that argument. On the other hand, I see possibilities of injustice arising or difficulty arising where an officer is required to do something which is not quite appropriate to his office in respect of one of these transferred functions. Although it is absurd to suggest that an engineer might be asked to do a surgeon's work, the difference is only one of degree rather than of principle.
I think that there is a case here, and I feel constrained to press the Minister on this—here is a case where you are imposing extra duties on existing officers for which they did not contract. The Minister may object to that phrase, "for which they did not contract," and if he does I will correct it to this extent—which were not part of the normal duties of these officers when they were accepted and which could not be reasonably thought of as duties for which they were contracting. Here you are, therefore, extending the liability to perform duties of these officers and at the same time extending it rather widely. I grant the Minister his argument on that Section 10 which he quoted. I grant the Minister all he said there, but here he is extending officers' duties and I suggest that the word "appropriate" or some such qualification should be put in to make it read "appropriate to the nature of the power, function or duty...." and also "appropriate to the nature of the office held by the officer." If that were put in it would be quite tight enough.
We have not that qualification in Section 10 of the 1941 Act.
Major de Valera
I appreciate that, but I am pointing out that we are putting in, so to speak, further liability of service. You are putting on a further onus and although that may not in practice work out to be too heavy, you are undoubtedly putting a further burden on these officers and I would suggest that having put that further burden on, you should put in a further safeguard in addition — both of them extra to the situation under the other Acts.
This is a peculiar situation. Section 7 which this amendment seeks to amend—and I hope my colleague, Deputy Major de Valera, will follow me and will watch it carefully —limits first of all the way in which a local authority may make an arrangement with another local authority to do certain work for that other local authority and they can do that by directing one of their employees to do it. Section (b) of the proposed amendment goes further. It says that if the other body for whom this officer is directed to carry out duties is a local authority—it implies, therefore, that this officer can in fact be directed to do work for a body which is not a local authority.
That, to my mind, seems to be quite a new departure. When we argued this on the Committee Stage, we argued it completely within the limit of one officer of a local authority doing work for another local authority and we were concerned to see that this officer's conditions of employment would not be worsened and the Minister pointed out that under another section he has a right to make an appeal. But now Part (b) of the amendment here envisages that he can be asked to do work for some body not a local authority. Surely to goodness that could be stretched too far. He might be asked to do work for some business or some——
Perhaps the Deputy would consider this point in conjunction with amendment No. 17?
This is a point I was about to make. Are we discussing amendment No. 17 with No. 1?
Yes.
Amendment No. 1 is consequential to amendment No. 17. Deputy Briscoe does not sound as if he were accepting amendment No. 17.
No, I was not. My difficulty is that I am not trained in law. I can only approach it from the layman's point of view. I am trying to do so with common sense, from my own experience of things.
It is because it is something new?
It is something new, and I want to know what it means before we accept this novelty. What does it really mean? I am quite prepared to give way to Deputy Sheldon in case he would like to explain it to me more lucidly. Then I may be quite sure of what I have before me.
It says "a body established by statute".
It could be any body, including the Sugar Company.
An Bord Fáilte, for instance.
It does not alter my approach on a person, an officer, who secures appointment to a local authority by a competitive examination. His whole idea of his future is based on service on a local authority and he can, by virtue of this amendment, suddenly find himself transferred to the C.I.E., the sugar company, or any other body set up by statute. It could be this C.T.T. business for helping exports to dollar areas, and so forth. I think this is something on which we should hesitate. I do not know that it is right to have this new thing at this time. I do not know what it means, to what extent it is in accordance with our ideas of local authorities. You may have an officer. He does not necessarily have to be an engineer, a doctor or a professional man. He may be an administrative officer, and his whole outlook is based on his training in local government service. Now you have him, without his consent, forcibly transferred out of the local authority altogether into a new world?
That is never anticipated in the amendment.
What does it mean?
Major de Valera
Are we discussing the two together?
Both together.
A local authority, according to this, can deal with its official according to statute, and I am talking about the official who will be affected by statute. I want to preserve his rights. I want to prevent him being put in such a position where a local authority would deal with him in a way which is not fair for his outlook, and for his whole future.
It is based entirely on Section 10 of the 1941 Act. That section does not envisage a local authority being able to take one of its servants into a local body. We are giving way, perhaps, under Section 17, to enable local authorities to do certain acts, for instance, for An Bord Fáilte. They are anxious to preserve ancient monuments, and are prepared to provide money for the making of approach roads to these monuments. They have no special machinery for the making of the roads, and this is merely to enable the local authority to do these jobs for An Bord Fáilte. They will be recouped for the doing of them by funds provided by An Bord Fáilte, and this is merely to enable the local authority to assign one of their officials or officers to this particular job. If the officer is not satisfied, he has a right to appeal to the Minister.
Deputy de Valera said that we might have local authorities who would ask a doctor to go out and make roads. I think you may find such local authorities, but surely to goodness if there is a right of appeal to the Minister, you will not find such bodies so severe.
You would not find such a doctor, anyway.
I think on a strictly legalistic interpretation of both the original section and the amendment, that there is something in what Deputy Briscoe has said. I think it would be quite unreal to give any weight to it, having regard to the appeal to the Minister which exists. I think we are entitled to assume that every local authority in the country is not going to go mad and suddenly send doctors out to make roads, or send their law agents out to clean streets, and that sort of thing. It is possible that that power exists if you interpret the amendment, and even the original section, absolutely strictly, but I do not think it could possibly happen. I think the House should accept this amendment as effecting what it is designed to effect, that is to give local authorities power to enter into agreements with what are in effect other State bodies in order to carry out work which could be more properly carried out by the local authority.
The Minister has given the example of ancient monuments. There are probably quite a number of bodies of which Deputy Briscoe and myself could think. There are certainly a number of functions of the Tourist Board that the personnel of local authorities would feel they could handle better. They prefer to do it themselves by agreement with the Tourist Board. As I see it, it is in order to enable the local authority to do that, and to use their administration and their officers for the purpose of carrying out that work that the section has now been expanded in the manner Deputy Briscoe pointed out, to include bodies other than local authorities.
I want an interpretation.
I agree that a rather fantastic result could be envisaged, if you have local authorities acting in a fantastic way, if you have their officers acting in a fantastic way, and if you have the Minister for Local Government acting in a fantastic way. Only by that chain of causation can you have fantastic results.
Major de Valera
I think Deputy Briscoe has put his finger on it and that it is some limitation that is needed. I quoted a ridiculous example merely to point out the principle but the trouble always arises when it is a question of the finer points. It is arguable how far it is wise to have a local authority in the position of taking up any type of duty if it was so minded provided it was a duty authorised by statute.
The local authority must be capable of doing it.
Major de Valera
Capable of doing it, I grant you that may be. "Are able and willing"—the word "able" might give some people cause for opinions and argument afterwards but it is doubtful, for instance, whether it would be wise to give a local authority a power wide enough so that you might find a local authority in the position, for instance, of trading. Apart from the questions that can arise there, there is the question of the employees. The officers are the people I would like to advert to in this. A local authority and, say, a body like An Bord Fáilte may quite easily have a certain common interest. Suppose there is some kind of a festival in a particular year and there are construction works to be done such as we saw done for An Tóstal on O'Connell Bridge.
That is a good example.
Major de Valera
It is a very good example.
Of what should not be done.
Major de Valera
Perhaps there is more guarantee it will not be disfigured if the local authority have a say in it. In any event the structure on O'Connell Bridge is not what I am concerned with here. What I am trying to say is that the example the Minister takes is a reasonable one. They have a common interest but, reasonable and all as it may be for a local authority and, say, An Bord Fáilte, to have a common interest, and reasonable and all as it may be—and I think we will all agree that it is reasonable that the facilities available to the local authority should be used for the purpose of that common interest—we must, on the other hand, ensure that we do not unduly overload the employees of the local authority who have other duties to do as well. What you are saying, in effect, in these two amendments, now taken together, is that the local authority can take over such a function as I have indicated on behalf of An Bord Fáilte, the body the Minister has specified, and that having done so by way of extra duty, the officers of the local authority would be compelled to carry that extra duty and burden over and above their normal duties.
I know I can press that point too far. I think it would be unreasonable to say that you could not expect an officer to do anything more than the normal routine duties. On the other hand you can place too heavy a burden on the officer. It is a totally different thing to say there is a bridge over a river at a boundary. It will be very convenient that the bridge should be the sole concern of one engineer and staff rather than of others. That is the type of case I would have visualised initially. It is very fair for the two authorities to make an arrangement by which the engineer for local authority A will do it and the engineer for local authority B can forget about it. That type of arrangement is fair enough by and large; there would be a fair cancellation out over a period of time.
However, it is a totally different thing if, as Deputy Briscoe points out, under Section 17, you are going to enlarge the whole scope of activities. Again let the Minister not misunderstand me. The reasonableness is obvious up to a point but the point of reasonableness where you consider the actual officers, that is amendment No. 1, stops far short of what may be the reasonableness of amendment No. 17.
The right of appeal is always there.
Major de Valera
I think the officers of local authorities will not feel 100 per cent. secure with the right of appeal. I may be misinterpreting them. I have no contacts with them and I am not in any way specifically briefed on this matter; I am speaking merely generally as a T.D.——
You have no specific case in mind?
Major de Valera
No, I have not, but I am a little bit apprehensive that we are being a trifle onerous in this. There are two types of safeguards I would like to see here, one I think the Minister is going to give us, that is, to limit the duty to a duty appropriate to the officer's office, and that is a very small thing to ask. I have given the absurd and extreme case, but you can go down to fine points and there injustice may be worked. However, in virtue of amendment No. 17, I think there is a little bit more in that. Are you going to say, for instance, to an engineer of a local authority who may have his hands full with his other duties that he has to build a festival hall, a festival park or something like that, in his off-time? Army officers have often found themselves in such a position but they have come to accept that. I do not think local authority personnel are going to accept that principle of regimentation.
There is a further difficulty here in regard to the use of the words "local authority". Notwithstanding the County Management Bill that is coming up, "local authority" may very well mean "county manager" as far as these officers are concerned and they will not have the safeguard of their own local authority in many functions. It will be the county manager and county managers, in turn, thanks to legislation as it is developing and particularly to a section under this Bill are becoming rapidly mere servants of the Custom House. I use the words "mere servants" in the sense that they are subject to detailed direction from the central organisation in the Custom House which is rapidly getting itself into a position where it is going to determine everything in detail notwithstanding the County Management Bill which is coming before us and which we will deal with later. I do not think that is a very happy situation for the officers of local authorities.
I must say they are quite satisfied.
Major de Valera
Maybe they are. But even if they are I would still take up this point.
Are they all satisfied?
I know a few who are anything but satisfied.
So do I.
Major de Valera
I must say I do not because I have not been talking to any of them. However, I would be a little worried about a statute that would leave me open to duties such as erecting a festival hall or putting up an ornamental bridge or something like that. That may sound absolutely fantastic but it is there and it is only one of the multifarious occupations in which an officer might be asked to engage. There is even the possibility that they might be asked to lay down a private railway for the sugar company. If the local authority agreed that it would be a good thing for them to lay down a private railway for the sugar company that might become one of an officer's duties. That may sound a fantastic suggestion but I think the section would be wide enough.
It must be appreciated that "local authority" here does not mean the local authority.
Major de Valera
That is so. It might not be the local authority at all.
If you look at Section 57, sub-section (3) you will find it is a reserved function.
Perhaps Deputy de Valera will look at page 24 of the Bill. I think he has been reading the wrong part of the Bill.
Major de Valera
Yes. I have been reading the wrong part and I must beg the Minister's pardon.
It says "entry under this section into an agreement shall be a reserved function." Reserved to the council of course.
Major de Valera
I grant the Minister that that does modify very considerably what I say but even so——
Not so much, if it concerns another local authority but not another body. Paragraph (b) brings in a body which is not a local authority at all.
Major de Valera
Even so, as I said, it does not make an awful lot of difference because the Custom House still have a lot to say in the matter of the actual direction of officers. The local authority may undoubtedly enjoy the reserved function to enter into an agreement but the executive actions in relation to that agreement will be very much within the scope of the manager and whether it is or is not you still have that particular difficulty. I still take my stand on my objection to sub-section (1) in which I say there is nothing to protect an officer. There is another great difficulty in this and I wonder if the Minister will enumerate what he considers to be officers within the meaning of this section. There is a definition of officers but will the Minister say what does that connote?
Every officer.
Everybody paid monthly but not those paid weekly.
There is a definition under the Local Government Act——
Major de Valera
As the section stands let us take again the example the Minister gave in relation to An Bord Fáilte. Supposing there is a decoration of a town and let us take the lighting of that town for a festival. Right enough the lighting can be a very heavy matter—it might be a matter for an engineer and that is clear enough—but what about decorations? Under this section a clerical officer engaged exclusively on purely clerical duties might be required to go out and hang up the flowers in the night-time.
He probably would be delighted.
He would be a member of a trade union.
It is a reductio ad absurdam, the whole thing.
Major de Valera
It is perfectly true for the Minister for Social Welfare and I grant him they may be members of a union but that is outside protection only. I want to see them protected by the statute.
But could not the same thing happen at the present moment?
Of course it could.
Could not a local authority at the moment ask its officials to do these things?
Not until the Bill becomes law.
Major de Valera
I doubt if they could not. I would not like to answer Deputy MacBride categorically on that point.
It is actually happening at the moment,
And who directs it?
The manager.
Yes.
Major de Valera
And is Deputy Tully in favour of what is in the Bill at the moment in that regard?
The people doing the jobs are accepting it and they have not asked either you or me to object to it.
Major de Valera
We should have some qualification appropriate to the nature of the office.
It is in no other Act. It is in this Bill but in no other Act.
Major de Valera
And you are bringing in something now which was not there before.
I would go a certain part of the way with Deputy de Valera, because I think the phrase "a body which is established by statute" is very wide. It is all right for the Minister to say his intentions are so and so, but the Minister can change and some future Minister might have very different ideas as to what should come in. If the Minister has specific bodies in mind it would be much better if he named them and not to leave us with this rather wide phrase.
We have changed those boards so very often and we have had so many new ones——
It should be so easy to bring in an amendment.
It is not so easy.
Did the Minister read paragraph (a) of amendment No. 17 which says: "A body which is established by statute and is not a local authority are of opinion." Could the Minister not make up his mind whether or not it is a collective noun? In one line he says "a body is" and in the next line "are." The Minister had better come down on one side or the other.
I agree.
We will amend it in the Irish version. Will that suit the Deputy?
That is very, very good, but I think it would be better if the Minister corrected it in the English version as well.
It is really a drafting correction. The draftsman will look after that.
There are two points worrying me.
I hope they are new ones.
I have spoken only on one so far. I want to see this body in a local authority limited. If the Minister says that you cannot put in the Bill now something that might not be required in the future, I agree, but he could put in a phrase stating that such bodies shall be bodies in relation to which there shall be some form of agreement with the local authority in the same way as the local authority subscribes to the Tourist Board.
Of course, there must be agreement between this body and the local authority.
It does not say so here.
Yes, it does, explicitly. Amendment No. 17 explicitly sets that out: there must be agreement between the two parties. They must be able and willing. Under paragraph (b), if they are requested by one of these bodies, they must be able and willing.
And if they are able and willing they may enter into an agreement.
I will accept that.
Major de Valera
This will be sub-section (2). Sub-section (1) stands; this will be sub-section (2) and (3) becomes (4).
That is right.
The second point I want to raise is in connection with the agreement. I would like Deputies to follow my argument in this because, if you like, I may be suspicious. Two local authorities may or can come to an agreement that one local authority will now authorise one of its officers to do certain work for the other local authority. Now this may be a nice way of getting rid of the officer in the other local authority who has been performing these duties up to the time of the agreement, in other words, two local authorities may come together and say: "We will ask A now to do the duties that he does for us for the neighbouring authority" and when that is agreed the other local authority says to the officer previously doing the job for them: "Look, we do not need you any more."
So we are now going to get a superman who will do the job of two. If such a state of affairs existed it would be a very good thing. If we have a superfluous man in a county we can get rid of him.
Then the Minister agrees.
It does not arise at all but, if such a thing did arise, it would be a very good thing.
It might not be the case of a man being superfluous, In every walk of life, whether it is professional or anything else, everybody can have an opinion. One may think that a particular professional man is better at his profession than another man in the same profession. A local authority may feel that an engineer, or some other officer, is a more capable man than the man in the neighbouring authority. The neighbouring authority may also think the other fellow is a nicer fellow and they would like to have him: "We do not like our chap and this is a device by which we can cut off our fellow's job." Now I want to provide against that. I think there should be some limitation whereby such a service should only be rendered by an officer of one local authority for another if the other local authority has not got an officer capable of doing the job.
There is no necessity for the section at all.
Section 10 deals with the question of officers, amalgamation and all the rest.
The confusion about this is that there are similar Acts referred to in different sections; they are all changed and all in different places. I am not clear on it. Deputy Tully, who represents Meath, has stated that he has not been briefed to oppose this section. None of us has been briefed. Is the Deputy aware that we only received these amendments this morning?
Oh, no.
The amendments on the Report Stage were only received yesterday morning.
They were cyclostyled last week and issued.
I only got the green form yesterday morning.
The typescript was sent out last week.
They were out in the middle of last week.
Major de Valera
On a point of order. Is anybody, except a Deputy, entitled to speak in this House?
I do not know that anybody attempted to speak in the Chamber except a Deputy.
Major de Valera
I heard another voice.
Speaking in the Chamber is, of course, strictly confined to Deputies. There is no question about that. I did not hear anybody else speak.
I hold that none of us could have been briefed, even if these amendments had been circulated in the middle of last week, because one has to try to interpret and understand them. I certainly cannot understand them even yet and I see in this first amendment many pitfalls and many things which may bring injustice in their train to the officials of our local authorities. Civil servants are treated in quite a different way from what is envisaged here. I want to prevent any doubt, first of all, if sub-section (b) includes other bodies other than local authorities, to which body a local authority may direct its official to do a particular job either permanently, part-time or for a period, that that particular body shall be one which has work of a nature suitable for that local authority official. Secondly, I do not want this section subsequently used as a guillotine by means of which the official of one authority may be used to cut out the official of another local authority. The Minister has admitted, by interjection, that a situation could arise where one might have a supernumerary official, and he asks is it not a good thing to get rid of that official if he is redundant?
One can get rid of him as the law stands. One does not have to wait for this section to become law.
I know that cases arise where one local authority may have a particular official doing a particular type of work and someone says that he is not fully occupied and that a saving could be effected by getting rid of him, or not filling the vacancy when it arises, and making the official of another local authority doing similar work do this particular work plus the work of the last man in the other authority. Now I want to direct the attention of my colleagues on the Labour Benches to the dangers inherent in such an amendment.
Might I point out one instance of where it might be desirable: supposing a local authority employs a good specialist, a lung specialist or a heart specialist, or someone like that, would it not be a good thing to have this agreement?
Or an inspector of weights and measures.
May I pursue my own example? Suppose the local authority arranges with its neighbouring local authorities to share the services of that specialist, would that not be desirable? Very often a local authority may not have a whole-time kidney specialist or a whole-time brain specialist——
We might need him.
——but could with another local authority employ him whole-time; would not that be desirable?
On that point, the other local authority may have as good a specialist as it is possible to get. I admit that. If there is a superman, then I say he should be taken out of the local authority, brought into the central authority and made available for all local authorities.
Where he would be no use to anyone.
Perhaps Deputy MacBride will agree with me in this. Every local authority has by statute to carry out inspections of weights and measures. It is quite possible two local authorities may get together and decide that one inspector of weights and measures can do the work of the county as well as the city and they may say: "When X retires from the county do not recruit a new man; we will make our man available for the work."
Now I want, and I think I should get support on this, each local authority to be self-contained and to have its own officials.
That is a bit of a luxury.
Now we know why the rates are so high.
We are trying to keep down local taxation. That is our aim.
The present position is that all our officials are fully employed. I do not know how they are employed in Cork but they are certainly fully employed in Dublin. I do not want the position to grow up where there is gradual spreading of responsibility from one set of local representatives in one particular area to another. The local representative will have to accept responsibility for the acts of the officials of the body of which he is a member and now, in addition, he is to accept responsibility for the acts of an official who is acting in another area. That is no joke.
Have not you already got that position in regard to regional hospitals where three or four counties combine to run one hospital?
That is a different thing. That is by consent, by arrangement.
Yes, by consent.
Yes, but we are talking of an official who obtains a position through a competitive examination and, as Deputy de Valera has said, with an implied contract as to his service and now, by Act of Parliament, we are going to vary his rights. I say that is wrong, and I am trying to argue all the consequences that can flow from it. It is on that point that I want this Dáil to recognise that it is wrong to put an unlimited claim——
Is not it only being done with the consent of the local authority?
But not with the consent of the official.
That position is not being altered. The official is still under the same jurisdiction.
Major de Valera
There is more work coming in for him.
The position arises now that, by statute, we will remove all doubts as to how far a local authority may direct or dictate to its employees in their work. I say that is going too far. We should agree that each local authority should be left on its own to try to do the best it can. When Deputy MacBride talks about regional hospitals or mental homes and so on, that is a different thing. They are bodies that have their own officials within them. There may be a manager and an assistant manager representing him and the local authority in the management of the institution but that institution has also in a self-contained way its own employees. I can see nothing but confusion arising from this. I can see it starting with higher officials and then getting down to lower levels and no man will know where he is to be to-day, to-morrow or next week. I beg the Labour Deputies to consider seriously the implications of this amendment.
I have listened very carefully to the discussion on this amendment, and I am personally concerned about the position of the officials but, unfortunately, I find it difficult to follow quite clearly Deputy Briscoe's reasoning on this matter. I am constrained to judge Deputy Briscoe's reasoning, that the amendment is liable to prove a danger to officials of local authorities in the light of my experience of Deputy Briscoe's and Deputy Briscoe's colleagues' operations in the local authority of which both he and I are members.
In what?
In the light of Deputy Briscoe's operations in the Dublin Corporation.
For instance?
For instance, in the past few months, the numerous attempts to switch duties which were properly assigned to one officer to another officer.
I do not think we can discuss the activities of the Dublin Corporation here.
I am raising this matter——
The Deputy cannot discuss the activities of a councillor on a public body.
I am subject to correction on that matter. From the practical point of view and viewing the amendment in the light of the local authorities in the County Borough of Dublin, we must realise that occasions may arise where it is necessary, in the interests of both local authorities, that a particular officer shall deal with a particular problem. If, as is envisaged in another Bill, Dublin City separates itself by agreement from Dublin County or Dún Laoghaire separates itself by agreement from the other two, when a problem of planning arises, say, main road planning, where the junctions of the two local authorities are involved and where from a realistic point of view it would be desirable that the matter should be dealt with by one expert, it would be unwise to adopt the attitude that you must have an expert on planning for the city, an expert on planning for the county and an expert on planning for Dún Laoghaire.
That is what is putting rates up.
That is not what is putting rates up.
You might possibly reach a position where two of the experts disagree. The same difficulty may arise in connection with water supply, sewerage and other matters, particularly in the local authority to which I refer. I do not see anything in the amendment which will prejudice the position of the officers in the local authorities. If I could be convinced that there was any serious danger, I would be quite prepared to support Deputy Briscoe on the matter but he appears to be chasing hares and the discussion of the amendment becomes a question of who will use the greatest number of words. I feel that certain circumstances may require that certain works should be carried out by one officer acting by agreement for both local authorities, without interfering materially or in any way whatsoever with the rights of any official coming under their jurisdiction.
Major de Valera
I should like to reply to Deputy Larkin's point by saying that it is a question of degree and we are not arguing that. We do recognise, and I think every reasonable person must recognise that, for instance, as the section was drafted originally, one local authority cooperating with another local authority, there was reason in it and on the balance, although there were objections, the original form of Section 57 was all right. We feel that it has got to be on the balance. As was pointed out, this is a substantive amendment. This is a totally different section in content. It is different to the extent of being very much wider than the original section we debated on Committee. The original section which we debated on Committee still stays there but added, over and above that, now is a similar provision, not only where one local authority is going to do work for another local authority but where a local authority is going to do any work for any other statutory body.
Again, it is very difficult to draw a precise line. We recognise that and I recognise the departmental difficulty in drafting and I recognise that all too frequently we have to trust the good judgment of the Minister and his Department but I still feel that in going to the extent to which we are going, introducing a new sub-section which makes a very material and substantive alteration and extension of the original provision, some safeguard should be provided for the officers.
What was the position when we debated this here before? The position when we debated this here before was that we accepted Section 57 as in the first draft, but we wanted this safeguard for the officers that they would be required to do only duties appropriate to the nature of the office they held. I rather thought—I am not by any means accusing the Minister of breach of faith—that we would probably get that amendment from the course of the discussion. The record will speak for itself, but we thought we were modest in asking for that. We recognised, in asking for that, that, by virtue of Section 57 and of Section 7 which we are discussing, certain additional duties were going to be imposed on the officers of local authorities and all we asked for was that the additional duties should be limited to those appropriate to the office held.
Now, on the Report Stage, or on the recommittal of the Bill, we find an additional onus thrown on them. Here we have a new sub-section, in addition to the original sub-section, making it mandatory upon the officers of local authorities to perform such duties as may devolve upon them in consequence of an agreement between their local authority and some other body, "body" being general enough to include any body set up by statute. That, translated into hard facts, might mean An Bord Fáilte; it might even mean the Sugar Company, Bord na Móna or the E.S.B. It could mean a multitude of bodies and, under this, if we allow it to go as it is now, without even the qualification of "duties appropriate to the office" which we ask for, every officer of a local authority is going to carry the added liability contained in sub-section (7) without any compensating protection being given to him.
The Minister says he can appeal to the Minister and he referred to Section 10 of the 1941 Act. That is nothing more than the officer has already and it is nothing more than he would have, in any event. We are putting additional duties on them which means, in plain language, that we are getting them to do additional work. We are putting a wide liability on them and not even safeguarding them to the extent that we first asked for, namely, "duties appropriate to the office". Though I will admit to Deputy Larkin and to the Minister that it is a question of a degree, if everything was done according to the standards of reasonableness of those of us at present in the House, it perhaps might be all right, but that is just not good enough in legislation. We know how the administrative machine can work sometimes. With the best will in the world of those charged with the administration, the administrative machine can be in its workings harsh on individuals. Is it going to be work in connection with An Tóstal; is it going to be the promotion work of An Bord Fáilte; is it going to be the development of roads for Bord na Móna; is it even going to be a siding for the Sugar Company?
All these things may sound remote and fantastic, to use Deputy O'Higgins's words, but all these things are not too fantastic to be brought within the terms of this section, if somebody should be so minded. If that is a possibility, then I think we are being grossly unfair to the officers of these local authorities in Section 7 and I would strongly appeal to the Minister, even at this stage, to defer this matter and introduce some safeguards. I think I am not being unreasonable when I suggest that this new amendment is going far beyond what any of us contemplated when discussing it in Committee previously.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 53.
Tá
- Allen, Denis.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colley, Harry.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kelly, Edward.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Moher, John W.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Malley, Donough.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Níl
- Belton, Jack.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Burke, James J.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Carew, John.
- Casey, Seán.
- Coburn, George.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Deering, Mark.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Glynn, Brendan M.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Lindsay, Patrick J.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Carroll, Maureen.
- O'Connor, John.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donovan, John.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, James.
- Tully, John.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Mrs. O'Carroll.
Question declared lost.
Amendment declared carried.
Bill, as amended, reported.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 7, to delete "made" in line 25, where it occurs firstly and substitute "communicated to the officer".
Would the House give a ruling on amendment No. 17?
This decision covers amendment No. 17. I will put amendment No. 17 when we come to it.
Major de Valera
If it helps the Chair, this vote covers it. Amendment No. 17 is disposed of now. I suppose it will have to be formally put.
I will put it when we come to it.
We will not oppose it then.
Major de Valera
We have finished the discussion on it.
In regard to amendment No. 2, an official amendment on the Committee Stage fixed the time limit for appeals at six months from the date the decision appealed against is communicated to the officer instead of six months from the date the decision is made. This amendment involves a consequential amendment of sub-section (2) in relation to appeals against decisions made before the commencement of the section. The House will remember that there was a lengthy debate on this particular section and I agreed to accept the amendment on Committee. This is a consequential amendment.
What does it really mean now?
I might mention that the House is not in Committee on these amendments.
Would the Minister tell us what the amendment now really means, since it is consequential?
It means what it reads.
I cannot make it out. I must confess inability to decode it, decipher it or understand it.
The Deputy made a great effort to understand it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 7, line 27, to delete "such commencement" and substitute "the decision is communicated to the officer or after such commencement, whichever is the later".
This is the same.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 7, line 47, before "including" to insert "for specified periods in no case exceeding one month".
I would like it to be clear that I am not fussy about the precise wording of this amendment. The reference to one month is not something I feel myself tied to. I put it down to try to get some clarity into paragraph (m) in Section 14. The White Paper mentions that paragraph (m) will give local authorities power to impose short term suspensions not exceeding seven days.
In plain fact, paragraph (m) does very much more, it provides for the imposition by local authorities of suspensions from performance of duties, including short term disciplinary suspensions not exceeding seven days. In other words, it is wider than set out in the White Paper. The Minister will likely say that in so far as it is wider it is consequential on Section 18, which removes from Section 27 of the Act of 1941 the power to suspend by local authority and the new Section 27 of the Act of 1941 will only give the Minister power to suspend, so that by paragraph (m) the former power of the local authority to suspend is now transferred. I think, in fairness, it does state in the White Paper that the intention is to bring together into one section all the things that a local authority can do in this matter.
There was another point made by the Minister with regard to the reason for the change, that was that only the Minister had power under Section 27 of the Act of 1941 to end a suspension. The result was that local authorities were unwilling to suspend for minor offences because it took so long to end the suspension. As far as I can find in paragraph (m) there is no power for the local authority to end a suspension made by them except a short-term disciplinary suspension not exceeding seven days. That may be the Minister's intention, that any suspension for a period longer than seven days will still require the Minister's own act to end the suspension. If that is so it is possibly all right, but I think that the local authority might be given power to end a suspension which was for longer than seven days and I cannot see that in this provision they will have such power.
The way I read it now is that because seven days is mentioned—any disciplinary suspension for less than seven days—the local authority can end the suspension because presumably they specified the number of days, but if they suspend without saying that it is less than seven days then only the Minister can end the suspension. If that is not so, I would be glad to know where provision is made for the local authority to end any suspension which is greater than seven days.
In the amendment I mentioned one month, but I have no particular feelings about it. In fact, I think it might even do to insert the words "for specified periods" as that would permit a local authority to say to an official: "You are suspended for a month." One does not need to end that suspension as it is for a specified period. Unless it is the Minister's intention that only periods of seven days or less are to come within the full jurisdiction of the local authority, I think he ought to consider some amendment in the form I have suggested.
Major de Valera
I would support the Deputy.
I cannot accept the amendment. We are inclined to forget that Section 14 merely replaces the powers which local authorities have at the moment. Under Section 18, Section 27 of the Local Government Act of 1941 is being repealed and this section is merely to reintroduce legislation which exists at the moment. It is not the intention at all to give the Minister the only power to suspend. The regulations which would be made will give the local authority full power of suspension. Power to end such suspension will rest with the Minister or the local authority, subject to the conditions set out in the regulations. In other words, the local authority will have practically equal power with the Minister in so far as it will be given to them under the regulations.
Ending suspensions is not mentioned.
I want to support Deputy Sheldon's amendment. I have a distinct recollection of the discussion on the Committee Stage and I have also some knowledge of the position under the old Act. Under the old Act the manager had power of suspension without doubt but he had no power of reinstatement without the Minister's sanction. In many cases where a suspension should have been only of short duration, because of the regulations that existed it was impossible to get a man back within a reasonable time after a minor offence. Consequently it militated against discipline, to the extent that a manager—or a local authority—might want to suspend somebody for a short period but could not do so because the power of bringing him back was out of his hands and consequently he would impose on the person greater punishment than he wished to give. This amendment now, which deals with the new situation, seeks to give the manager or the local authority power to suspend a person but if that person is suspended only for a very minor offence, for less than seven days or seven days, the man is automatically reinstated; whereas if he is suspended for a period longer than that—then only the Minister can reinstate him, and that might take months. We are back to the position where the manager has either to overlook some minor offence or inflict on the individual a punishment which he himself feels is unjust.
I think what Deputy Sheldon asks is reasonable, that either you have in the hands of the manager of the local authority power to suspend an official for a period of three days, a week, two weeks, three weeks, or up to a month, or else you have specified periods and, after that, the big suspension, subject to the Minister considering it, reviewing it and allowing the man to be reinstated or whatever way he wishes to look at it.
I think that Deputy Sheldon's amendment improves the new section. Because I understand the situation and because of what Deputy Sheldon's amendment says, too, I am in agreement with him, subject to what he suggests, that he is willing to withdraw the period of one month if we can agree on specific periods. I take it that his view in approaching this matter is the same as mine, which is to bring about better discipline by not having a manager of a local authority either overlooking offences, because the punishment would be too harsh, or inflicting punishment which he thinks is unreasonable under the circumstances.
It seems to me that Deputy Sheldon has made quite a reasonable case for the amendment. Is there really any objection to it? Does it introduce any administrative difficulty that the Minister foresees or does it interfere with the policy of the Bill? I do not think it does.
It does.
If the House is going into Committee again——
I thought this was one of the amendments in Committee.
It is not. It is the Dáil in session and not in Committee.
I would be willing to give way to the Minister.
Would the Minister put it in the form of a question?
I will put it in the form of a question to the Minister.
It would cut across the general policy of the Bill. The Deputy will appreciate that in very many cases, where it is found necessary to suspend an official, investigations may go on for considerable periods. If we had a limit of one month it might be necessary to reinstate at the end of a month some official who has defaulted in some way or another and then suspend him again at a later date. That is one of the difficulties I see.
What about the fellow who comes in drunk?
You have the seven days in that case.
Could not some other period be agreed on?
Does Deputy Sheldon wish to reply?
I can see a very good reply, but I have not got it from the Minister. The Minister could say that he was satisfied that the present arrangements under the Act should be maintained and that his intention was only to provide for short term suspensions not exceeding seven days. It is the way that it is in that makes me suspicious because the Minister is talking about some power to end suspension which is new to a local authority. There is no power in this paragraph for the Minister or anyone else to frame a regulation which will give power to a local authority to end the suspension. I do not see it anywhere about ending a suspension. If the Minister replies that the regulation which provides for the beginning of suspension can also provide for the ending of it, I do not see why he has gone into such detail about other matters, but nowhere is there a reference to the making of a regulation governing the ending of a suspension by a local authority. If the Minister is satisfied that that power is there, then I am satisfied.
I am satisfied.
But that makes it more peculiar as to why the words come in in the brackets at all. Surely, if the wide power was there, there was no necessity to put it in. I think the Minister has a terrible predilection for parenthetical remarks which merely make it harder to read, but that it by the way. If the Minister is satisfied that there is power in this to make a regulation which will allow a local authority to end a suspension, then I am quite satisfied because that is all I want to secure. If that is so, then I do not understand why it is necessary to put in brackets "including short-term disciplinary suspensions, not exceeding seven days." Surely that would fall into the ordinary general class. I am not an official of a local authority, but if I were and the manager tried to suspend me for one month through some regulation, I would be inclined to fight it.
I am satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 7, lines 51 and 52, to delete "payment or disposal otherwise" and substitute "or payment".
This amendment was put down more to seek information than anything else. It is more or less covered by what the Minister said with regard to the previous amendment. The phraseology of the ending of this paragraph with regard to what happens the pay or emoluments of a suspended officer is taken from the Act of 1941. In another section, very properly, of course, it was provided that it might be necessary to provide for the disposal or otherwise of any remuneration that was withheld. I presume that was in order to cover defalcations which might have affected some outside person or body. As it is, I took it that paragraph (m) as stated in the White Paper dealt with minor things. I wanted to take this with my other argument on paragraph (m). As far as I could see it dealt with minor things and the question of the disposal would not arise. That was a major offence and would come under Section 27 of the 1941 Act, as amended. However, I would like to hear the Minister briefly on that point.
Paragraph (m) will cover any offence. There is no innovation at all in this particular section. As Deputy Sheldon has pointed out, by virtue of Section 27 of the Local Government Act, 1941, the appropriate Minister had power to forfeit or otherwise dispose of the remuneration of a suspended holder of an office during the period of such suspension. Prior to the enactment of the 1941 Act, there were similar powers given by Section 11 of the Local Authorities Officers and Employees Act, 1926 so that there is nothing new in this. We feel this is very essential for the reasons I set out. I think that in view of my reply to amendment No. 4 the Deputy will be satisfied to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 7, line 56, before "given" to insert "(being directions for the purpose of giving effect to the regulations, but neither extending the regulations nor widening their scope)".
Several Deputies spoke on the Committee Stage about this matter. It is to meet their wishes I have now put in this amendment. I think Deputies MacBride, de Valera and Briscoe requested me to do this on the Committee Stage and it is for that purpose I have now brought in the amendment.
Major de Valera
I appreciate the Minister bringing in this amendment which is very close to what Deputy MacBride suggested in the course of the debate. However, the principle involved in paragraph (m) of Section 14 is to my mind deep and fundamental. The Minister must not think I am unappreciative. I am appreciative of his willingness to try to meet us in this.
I feel that this is a matter of principle of such importance that I cannot say this amendment meets the point put forward by some of us. I regret that, but the difficulty is this, that the provision of a statutory force for directions, whether they limit the scope of the regulations or not, is rather too wide a statutory power. The statutory force that is going to be given to such directions is, I think, something that is too wide and broad in principle.
This particular matter has been debated at length in Committee. Administrative directions are one thing. They are constantly being given by letter or otherwise, but here we are going to give, as I quoted on the Committee Stage, in the Minister's own words—I am paraphrasing—power to legislate by letter, because that is what it amounts to. You are giving statutory force to the directions given. In other words, you are giving statutory force to a letter. The proposal now is to limit that within the scope of the regulations. I am not satisfied with the draft, I am sorry to say. I do appreciate, and I want to place this on record, the Minister's attempt, but I am sorry to say that I feel the principle is a very important one and that this amendment does not meet the point.
I think I was one of the Deputies who objected strongly to the provisions of Section 14 in so far as they related to directions given by the Minister. Frankly, I must say that I detest any of these ministerial powers to legislate either by directions or Orders. I should like, with Deputy de Valera to place on record my appreciation of the way in which the Minister yielded to the views of Deputies in the House on the Committee Stage. I think that he has met the position extremely fairly, and that the main objection which there was to the original section has been met by his amendment.
I should like also to say that the Minister has really given a headline as to the way in which a discussion in the House should be approached, and as to the way in which the views of Deputies can be met by a Minister who is prepared to try to understand their viewpoint. I think that the Minister has tried to understand the viewpoint of the House in this amendment.
I also should like to say that, in my opinion, the Minister has met the objections very fairly. A direction which can neither extend a regulation nor widen its scope is not one that you can call legislation by a letter. I think that Deputy de Valera is unduly apprehensive and is probably exaggerating what might happen. May I say, in view of the way in which the discussion developed in Committee, of Deputy de Valera having doubts and of Deputy MacBride having doubts and of there being a sort of rough attempt at the time to find a formula that would meet everyone's objection, I certainly expected to find on the Order Paper for Report a reasoned amendment by Deputy de Valera giving precisely the form that he thought would meet the case, in his opinion? I suggest that merely to come along now and say that the phraseology which the Minister has adopted does not meet with his approval, and without saying in what particular way, Deputy de Valera has a very weak case indeed. I think that the Minister is to be congratulated on the wording of the amendment. In my opinion, he has gone very much further than I had expected him to go.
As one who strongly objected to the wording of paragraph (n) of Section 14 as drafted originally, I want to say that I think there can be no objection to it now as amended.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 8, to insert before "such office", in line 47, "on account of any alteration (whether it has already occurred or is in contemplation) in the nature or extent of the duties attached to such office, it is in the public interest that".
The amendment of (1) (c), by the insertion of certain words in line 47 is proposed as a result of a suggestion made by Deputy de Valera on Committee Stage that the wording of paragraph (c) might be linked with that of paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Local Government Act, 1941. The amendment will provide that the grounds for abolition of office will correspond to those on which the holder of an office may be called on to resign. That is the principle behind the amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 8, lines 58 to 62, and page 9, lines 1 to 3, to delete "be capable of being regarded as rendering the position of the holder materially altered to his detriment if the appropriate Minister is satisfied that neither the local authority under whom the officer has been employed nor the local authority offering the other office are in a position to offer an alternative office in the same place or places or in close proximity hereto" and substitute "itself be regarded as rendering the position of the holder materially altered to his detriment".
This amendment is also introduced in response to the suggestion which I received in the House that the Minister should be more free to decide on its merits in each case whether the position of an officer had been materially altered to his detriment or not by reason of a transfer. In the section, as it stood, the question of whether the position of an officer had been materially altered to his detriment or not by reason of a transfer to another office depended to some extent on whether the local authorities concerned could have made a more favourable offer of an alternative office or not. It is now proposed to remove this feature so that the Minister's discretion will be less restricted.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 9, to add to Section 20 a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) A direction for the purposes of this section shall operate as follows, and not otherwise, that is to say: it shall permit a local authority, to whom it relates, if they so think fit, to assign remuneration to the relevant officers or servants within the levels of remuneration governed by the considerations indicated in the direction and, in the case of any such assignment, the sanction of the appropriate Minister shall not be necessary for giving effect to the local authority's decision.
It is proposed to amend this section by the insertion of a new sub-section— sub-section (4)—which, it is hoped, will meet some of the objections to the section which were raised in the debate on the Committee Stage. The new sub-section makes it clear that directions which may be given under the section will not be compulsory but merely permissive in character. Local authorities may act on them or not as they wish. It provides that where a local authority varies a wage rate in pursuance of a direction, it will not be necessary to obtain the sanction of the Minister. Generally, it ensures that the directions will be merely a device by which the Minister can say to local authorities: "If you wish to vary rates of wages you may do so as you please and you need not apply for any sanction to the changes, provided you keep within the limits laid down. You are not, however, obliged to act on these directions if you do not wish to act." So long as the basic scales are laid down, councils may vary the rates within the limits of those scales. We are giving them that discretion in response to appeals made in the House.
I am afraid I cannot congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has met the objections of the Labour Party to this section because to my mind he has, if anything, made the section worse from our point of view. On the Committee Stage we had an amendment down which in effect was designed to keep to the minimum ministerial interference in the matter of rates of remuneration for local authority employees while at the same time giving the Minister the right of sanction. We felt at that time and we still feel that any ministerial directions such as those envisaged under this particular section would, in effect, set down rates of pay for employees of local authorities without taking into account at all the varying circumstances as between one particular district and another, and we felt that such directions from the Custom House to the local authority would hamper— to say the least of it—negotiations between the local authority as employers and the trade unions representing the employees.
The Minister comes along now with this additional sub-section and all it does, in effect, is to say that if both trade unions and local authorities negotiate a rate of wages within the limits laid down in his direction they need not send that to the Minister for sanction. Our amendment sought greater freedom of negotiation between the representatives of the employees and the employing authority and I must say that I am very disappointed at the way the Minister has amended it in the Report Stage because I did feel we had made a better case and felt we had him converted. I must say I am very disappointed.
Major de Valera
I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I do not think this amendment quite meets the points that were put up.
I am afraid it is as far as I can go.
Would it not be better without the new section at all?
Yes, it would be very much better.
On the Committee Stage, what was, I think——
If the House does not want the new sub-section, I would be prepared to withdraw it.
I think the Minister would be better advised to withdraw it. It means nothing.
It is a Hobson's choice.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 10, to delete lines 1 to 17, and substitute the following section:
21.—(1) No person shall hold any office of profit under or be employed for remuneration by or under any local authority while he is a member of that authority.
(2) No person shall hold any major office under a local authority while he is a member of any other local authority whose functional area is, or is situate in, the same county or county borough as that of or within which is situate the functional area of such local authority or in any county or county borough adjoining to that county or county borough.
(3) Where a person ceases to be a member of a local authority otherwise than by reason of the expiration of his term of office, he shall be regarded for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) of this section as continuing to be such member for 12 months after such cesser or until his term of office would, but for such cesser, have expired, whichever is the shorter period.
(4) In this section any reference to a local authority shall be construed as not including a reference to any body whose functions are restricted to advice, consideration, report or consultation.
(5) Sub-section (1) of Section 70 of the Act of 1925 shall cease to have effect, subject to the proviso that every restriction on holding any office or profit or being employed for remuneration which resulted from the application by any other Act of that section and which was in operation immediately before the commencement of this section shall continue in operation.
This amendment is one which was discussed at considerable length here on the last occasion. The amendment now proposes to insert a new Section 21 to replace the existing Section 21 of the Bill and also sub-section (1) of Section 70 of the Local Government Act, 1925. This deals with disqualifications of former members of local authorities who became employees, and without going into the law as it stands at the moment, it is now proposed that once a person ceases to become a member of a local authority, he is qualified to become an employee provided he ceases membership on the local authority coming to an end of its term of office. In other words, he cannot resign, but if the particular local authority comes to the end of its term of office and he does not seek re-election, there is no bar on his obtaining employment.
That is the principle behind the section. The proviso in sub-section (5) is designed to maintain the status quo so far as vocational education committees and county committees of agriculture are concerned. Section 70 of the Local Government Act of 1925 has been applied to these committees by the Agriculture Act, 1931, and the Vocational Education Act, 1930, but the question of any amendment of that application is outside the scope of the present section, which deals only with local authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Local Government.
I do not think that this actually meets our point. It goes some distance, but we had a specific case in mind about the question of employment under a local authority and we tabled an amendment asking that the matter would receive consideration. Like Deputy Casey, I thought we had the Minister converted, but apparently he is a lot harder to convert.
I have been more easily converted than any other Minister I have ever known introducing legislation in this House.
Possibly. While there is perhaps some improvement in the situation, we would be glad——
I think if the Deputy reads the new section carefully he will find it does meet his point.
Could I just ask the Minister what do the first few words mean: "No person shall hold any office of profit..."?
It refers, of course, only to major offices.
Does it mean the director of a concern that is a contractor to the local authority?
Oh, no. It really boils down to this: you cannot be an officer of a local authority and be a member of it. That is what it comes down to in plain, simple language.
Amendment No. 10 put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 15, to delete lines 5 to 7 and substitute as follows: "it is visible from a road and—
(a) it is capable of being confused with a traffic sign,
(b) it makes a traffic sign provided in accordance with this section less visible to road users, or
(c) it obstructs the view of road users so as to render the road dangerous to them."
On the Committee Stage, on Section 36 of the Bill dealing with traffic signs, certain matters were brought to my attention and I promised to look into them. Amendment No. 11 is designed to give effect to suggestions made so far as it was considered reasonable to do so. The effect is to bring in a new set of circumstances in which the erection of a sign, device, notice or light, will be an offence. This is done by paragraph (c) of the amendment which makes it an offence if the sign, etc., obstructs the view of road users so as to render the road dangerous to them. I think it was Deputy Briscoe's suggestion.
I am possibly going to surprise the Minister by thanking him for the manner in which he has met objections by bringing in this amendment. It meets absolutely and entirely every point I raised and I want to thank him here in the House for the courtesy that was extended to me and the manner in which an officer of his Department actually consulted me on the drafting of this amendment, I think by direction of the Minister, to make sure it would be satisfactory. Consequently, I want to thank him for the manner in which this has been dealt with.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 16, lines 24 and 25, to delete "River Shannon" and substitute "Rivers Shannon and Blackwater."
In moving this amendment, I am only pressing an open door.
An open bridge, you mean.
An open door and an open river. I searched the Second Reading debate on this Bill and I could not find any mention in it of any appeal to the Minister by anybody in connection with the Shannon and then, like a bolt from the blue, this amendment appeared on the paper and I am glad the Minister has called our attention to it in the manner in which he has done. This House unanimously granted the Minister sanction for preventing the Westmeath County Council from putting a fixed bridge over the Shannon at Athlone. That is the position. As one who believes that the waterways of this country should be free, at least in as far as they are navigable, I certainly claim here the same rights for the Blackwater as we have for the Shannon, and I do not think I am going beyond that. Anyone who will take a look at that river will see what is the position of affairs on it. What right have we as a legislative body to foresee the future, and to decide what use is to be made of the waterways of this country? What right has any legislative body to say: "Well, we are going to block this river for ever." With regard to that lovely river at Cappoquin, what right has this House to say: "We are going to prevent not alone ships going up to Cappoquin, but we are going to prevent the industrial development of that town."
You wanted Cork Harbour blocked, anyway——
Deputy Corry is in possession. Deputy Casey will get an opportunity of making his own statement.
This might be considered a fairly clever move. The case I am making is that in blocking the waterway a definite stop is being put to the industrial development of that town. I spent a considerable time in the town of Tallow on the River Bride which this bridge would also block, and anyone looking to-day at the idle mills and the dilapidated condition of it could not but feel that that town was crying out for an industry. I am only seeking here for that town and for the town of Cappoquin what this Dáil on the 1st of December last freely granted to Athlone. I claim that we have a far bigger claim than that made for Athlone. Speaking in the Dáil on the 1st of December, 1954, on the Minister's amendment, in column 1400, Deputy Kennedy said:—
"That swivel bridge has not been used for 20 years."
But the Minister insisted that no fix would be put on the bridge.
Take the River Blackwater. I have information here from the Cork Harbour Commissioners which tells us the number of ships that passed up the river during the past four years. In 1951 five ships passed up, in 1952 eight, in 1953 four, and in 1954 five; total 22 ships. When I investigated the tonnage of these vessels, I found that they were ships of 300 tons, with masts of 63 feet and 65 feet, or thereabouts— schooners, in plain language. That is the position. I say when this House, in its wisdom, unanimously agreed with the Minister about Athlone, then I think I have a much better claim to ask the House to agree to this. I do not think I am being unreasonable. To my mind, this is the crux of the matter. That is why I said I believed I was pushing an open door. I cannot see any reason on God's earth for any objection to this amendment, and therefore I confidently move it.
I must say that I am in entire sympathy with the purpose of this amendment. I am very appreciative of the manner in which the Minister made his decision as regards the Shannon. I felt that any attempt to interfere with navigation on the Shannon, or indeed any other navigable highway, would be a completely retrograde step.
I will not delay the House to-night repeating all the arguments in favour of non-interference with water highways. As I pointed out, water highways are as good and better than roadways, because they have the main advantage that they do not have to be annually maintained. In addition, the history of industrial development the world over establishes the fact that industrial development always follows the main water highways.
I am not familiar with the position of the River Blackwater I am not able to talk with any detailed knowledge or first-hand information of conditions there. Deputy Corry, however, has mentioned, and I accept his assurance, that it is being used at the moment by a number of ships—I think he mentioned 22 in the last three or four years, ships of 300 tons. Presumably these ships ply up and down the River Blackwater because they are able to transport goods more economically and more conveniently for the purposes of local industries, or for the purposes of townspeople along the river. Why then, if that is so, should we decide to close a water highway?
A waterway does not cost anything to maintain. It is a ready-made highway with which God has provided us, and it should be used regularly for the transport of goods. It would seem fantastic that we should not, at this stage, when we, I hope, are working towards a greater degree of national development and industrialisation, take note of the elementary factors.
One of the vices of the provisions in the Bill relating to bridges has been fairly well illustrated by the instance of the Blackwater and by the controversy which has arisen in regard to the Youghal bridge. I do not propose to review in detail the position which has arisen in this connection but it appears there are two alternative proposals, one for the reconstruction of the existing bridge with an opening span. It is argued—and the argument is supported by a fairly responsible weight of technical opinion—that the existing bridge with the opening span can be reconstructed at a cost of something in the neighbourhood of £135,000 less than it would cost to construct a completely new bridge further up the river without an opening span.
I mention that from this point of view. As a result of some inquiry which was held—an inquiry of that nature very often is not very representative because local interests are not alive to the issues that are raised at the inquiry and very often they are not in a position to go and fight their case at the inquiry—and as a result of the departmental views, it has apparently been agreed by the Department of Local Government that the existing bridge is not to be rebuilt but that another bridge is to be built without any opening span and that that bridge will effectively block the navigation on the Blackwater River. When I say "effectively block" I mean block it to ships of any sizable tonnage, and apparently ships of sizable tonnage at present use the Blackwater. Even if only five ships a year use the Blackwater at the present moment, it would be nationally and economically unsound to block that river, that highway, which has been there since goodness know how long and which has, apparently, been consistently used for commerce of one kind or another.
It does seem that, in the course of the inquiry which was held and in the course of the formulation of the official departmental view, those factors were left out of consideration. The matter seems to have become entangled with all kinds of other considerations and conflict of technical views seems to have overshadowed the wider issue as to whether as a matter of policy it is sound to block any of our navigable rivers.
I do not know whether the Minister has yet had an opportunity of considering definitely what is to be done in regard to navigation on the Blackwater and the Youghal bridge, but I would like to say this. I am not a technician and I have no technical knowledge as to the possibilities of reconstructing the existing bridge with an opening span as against a proposal to construct a completely new bridge without an opening span, but I am satisfied that a strong case has been made against the proposal to build a completely new bridge. A strong case has been made that the building of a new bridge would cost well over £100,000 more than the rebuilding of the existing bridge. I do not know whether that is right or wrong, but certainly a case has been made which would put me on inquiry.
I would urge the Minister very strongly not to take any action in regard to the Youghal bridge without having the matter fully investigated again. I am not in a position to judge between the merits of different engineers or different proposals that have been put forward nor indeed is any member of this House in a position to judge these matters but I am satisfied that there is a sufficient body of technical opinion which favours the reconstruction of the existing bridge with an opening span at a cheaper cost than the construction of a completely new bridge which certainly would prevent me from supporting any proposal that might be made for the closing of the navigation on the Blackwater.
I would like the Minister to approach this whole question of the Blackwater on the basis that it would be a completely retrograde step to close any navigable highway and particularly one which is in constant use and has been in constant use, apparently, for centuries for commerce of a sizable nature. I hope that various towns on the Blackwater will eventually emerge from the state of depression in which they now are and if they do they will undoubtedly require to be able to use the River Blackwater. In years to come, perhaps the next ten, 20 or 50 years, the people of that day and generation who will want to develop these towns will point their finger against the Government that allowed the navigation to be blocked on that river.
There is just one other consideration which might possibly be more for the Department of Finance than for the Minister and it is this. As I understand the legislation affecting the building of bridges which obstruct navigation, it provides that compensation has to be paid to any interests that were damaged by interference with that navigation. I wonder if the Minister has obtained any estimate of the amount of the claims that may be made by people who utilise the Blackwater at the moment to carry goods? Possibly they may be in a position to make very substantial claims. If the building of a completely new bridge with an opening span in itself costs more than the rebuilding of the existing bridge with an opening span, we have now to add the probable amount for compensation that would have to be paid to the users of the Blackwater, whose rights would be interfered with if the river is blocked.
For all these reasons I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment. I think he will be doing what is nationally right and I feel that in doing that he will earn the gratitude of the people along the Blackwater, of the people whose livelihood depends on their being able to use the river, so that his action in keeping open the Blackwater will be part of a tribute to him ultimately by other generations when the towns on the river are fully developed.
I am very sorry I cannot accept this amendment. Deputy MacBride spoke here some weeks ago —on the 1st of December, I think—on this Bill and he and others made an exceptional case as to why the Shannon should be treated differently from the other waterways. He convinced me and he convinced the House to such an extent that we accepted an amendment. As I have said, it was pointed out to us then that the Shannon was different from any other waterway in the country. I would not like any person to think that I propose to obstruct navigation. I have no such intention. If a fixed bridge is built there it will not affect navigation in the way that has been suggested here. We already have a fixed bridge over the Boyne and there never has been the suggestion that it has been an obstruction to navigation. There is another one over the Foyle in Derry. It is one of the finest in Ireland and we have never heard any suggestion that navigation there has been affected.
How are we going to get up there?
By submarine. Does the Minister know the Youghal bridge?
I do and I know Ardsallagh, too, and if the proposed bridge is erected at Ardsallagh there will be a clearance of 21 feet for vessels even at the very highest tide, and any boat which is at present in navigation on the Blackwater will be permitted to go up and down there. Then a Deputy comes along to me with suggestions about old schooners with 60-foot masts which are as out of date as Youghal bridge itself.
Moby Dick was there.
As I have said many times already, I shall never be a party to imposing obstruction on any waterway which at present is navigable.
Then accept the amendment.
If the fixed bridge is built at Ardsallagh navigation will not be obstructed by that fixed bridge.
All cod.
In the fjords of Norway and Sweden all the bridges are fixed bridges but there is never any obstruction of navigation. We know also of the famous Golden Gate on the west coast of America. That has never obstructed navigation.
How about the Brooklyn Bridge?
Major de Valera
And while the Minister is at it, how about the Sydney Bridge?
And the famous one in Edinburgh. Simply because I am not writing in the Blackwater in the Bill does not mean that I intend there will be any obstruction of navigation there. I hope I shall never be a party to obstruction anywhere.
Major de Valera
I think the Minister's approach to this question of the building of fixed bridges is poor consolation to anybody like Deputy MacBride or Deputy Corry who is interested in keeping our waterways open. In regard to this amendment, I would take the viewpoint already expressed by Deputy MacBride that the test of the navigable waterway is that it is navigable for ships of a certain draft. I consider that to be a reasonable test, in my humble opinion. In the case of Youghal bridge we will allow 30 feet for high tides instead of the 21 the Minister mentioned, but I think the Minister knows very well that even the 30 feet I allow would not be enough for navigation.
I was assured it was.
Major de Valera
It all depends on what size the vessel is and I do not think that even 30 feet would be sufficient to provide a clearance there for navigation. If, on the one hand, you are to build an opening structure which would preserve the navigable rights of the people there or, on the other hand, you were to build ramps and raise the roadway to make provision for a fixed bridge, I wonder how the two sets of costs would compare? I feel quite sure they would favour the opening structure. We are not all engineers or technicians here, so there is no use in giving technical opinions. The essential thing is that we should make every reasonable effort to keep our waterways open to the extent to which they are navigable at the moment.
Frankly, I wonder if the Minister was serious in giving us the examples of bridges which he gave us here. I suppose he does not make the point, but surely he is not even remotely suggesting the building here of any structure on the subsidiary waterways of Ireland like some of the bridges he mentioned. I feel rather strongly that, though from the short term viewpoint the cost of an opening structure might look big, it is worth while from the point of view of preserving the waterways and of keeping them available to traffic.
None of these waterways is navigable beyond a certain length. We are dealing specifically here with the River Blackwater, but I know one or two other rivers as well which could be covered equally in this. The Boyne Viaduct is exceptionally high, but it is the exception because the River Boyne is blocked unduly by another bridge at Drogheda, and even though there is a canal—but I shall not go into details. The Shannon is exceptional only in its size. The Minister claims there was an exceptional case made for the Shannon. What is it? Is it the size of the waterway and the length to which navigation is possible on it. The Blackwater, the Barrow, the Nore, the Suir, the Slaney are others of our rivers which have considerable navigable stretches up from their mouths as well, and what has happened in the past should make us acquiesce in this amendment.
I do not see a great difference in principle as between the Shannon and these other rivers. Of course, the reverse would hold in the case of a very small river somewhere. For instance, there is the Blackwater running through Meath which joins the Boyne and which in its upper reaches would not be navigable, so there would be no particular sense in preserving it as a navigable waterway; but in the particular instance in question here at Youghal, right at the mouth of the Blackwater, as Deputy Corry has pointed out, I think there is every case. I would strongly urge the Minister to accept in this particular case. I go further and say that if there are any other instances in which an exception should be made towards the mouth of a river, now is the time to make the survey. Perhaps this would meet the Minister's point: suppose the Minister were to restrict Deputy Corry's amendment to the first fixed bridge, would that meet with his approval? I can see difficulties. I know the Shannon has its open bridges. Suppose the Minister were to restrict the amendment to the first fixed bridge——
How exactly does the Deputy mean?
Major de Valera
Offhand, I cannot remember all of them, but I know at Fermoy there is a fixed span over the River Blackwater. That is non-openable and a definite block to navigation there. I am sure there are ones further down than that. Would my suggestion help the Minister; make it the first existing fixed bridge and exempt the river below that bridge to the sea. I think everybody would be reasonably happy if that were done.
On the face of it, it seems quite sensible to ask that this amendment should be conceded. It simply requests that on the River Blackwater there should be no fixed bridge. What part of the Blackwater is involved? Does the Deputy mean Youghal, or every part of it? That is one point on which we should have some clarification. Deputy de Valera raised the other point. He mentioned Fermoy. Now we all know that bridges do not last forever. Deputy Corry's claim is a sensible one but, at the same time, there is another angle. Assuming Deputy Corry is speaking merely in relation to Youghal, the point then arises as to where at Youghal the bridge should be situated. That is the crux. It is only natural that Cork representatives should consider the interests of Cork before anywhere else, but we cannot afford to let anyone lead us up the garden path, particularly when we do not know where that path is leading.
We all know where the existing bridge is across the river at Youghal. Is it the Deputy's contention that the non-fixed bridge should be erected at that particular point? If that is his argument, he has, of course, a case. The Minister mentioned Ardsallagh. I do not know whether Deputy Corry will admit that he has some case behind his amendment if there is clearance to that point. Like everyone else I have had to go through a certain purgatory in Cork County Council in relation to the bridge at Youghal. At every meeting we have had to learn a little more about it. I do not believe there would be a case for a bridge of the type to which Deputy Corry refers further up the Blackwater. It is quite clear that Deputy Corry is anxious that the bridge should be constructed at a certain point and possibly we may not all agree as to that point.
Were we to agree to this amendment, however, it could be used against us afterwards in connection with our own local deliberations because we will be responsible for the financing of this bridge. It is the local representatives who will be involved where the question of finance is concerned and not the members of this House. Assuming Deputy Corry means only one bridge, as I believe he does, then our difficulty will be to decide where the particular bridge should be placed. The Minister has mentioned Ardsallagh. Deputy Corry knows every inch of that area. He may not admit it here but he realises perfectly well that at the particular point at Ardsallagh there would be clearance for the particular type of craft using the Blackwater.
We all know the draft required in the various areas. That is an angle to which we should advert because a question may arise later in relation to another river where there is sufficient depth for some of the largest boats coming into this country. Deputy Corry referred to an old bit of a river, and he was speaking at the time of the quays at Cork City. If the River Lee is only a stream, surely Deputy Corry cannot now try to convince us that the Blackwater is something bigger.
I do not think it would be sensible at this juncture to accept what Deputy Corry is asking for without all the cards being put on the table. That is the problem which confronts us in the existing circumstances. It is a serious one. It is a matter we cannot decide here and now in the very short time at our disposal. I think it would be unfair to Deputy Corry as well as unfair to ourselves, to jump to such a hasty conclusion as Deputy Corry would have us come to in this particular instance. In view of the fact that nobody knows at the moment where this particular bridge will be erected I consider this is the wrong time at which to ask us to decide on the particular type of bridge. Had the Minister given his decision as to where the particular bridge should be erected on the Blackwater, then we would have that information. I agree that if this bridge is to be erected near the existing one it should be the type required by Deputy Corry. In that event he would have an excellent case and great credit would be due to him for tabling this amendment. But I do not know that Deputy Corry can anticipate a decision because none of us knows what the decision will be. We do not know at the moment where the bridge will be erected and we cannot, therefore, make up our minds whether or not it should be the type required by Deputy Corry.
Debate adjourned.