I should like to compliment Deputy L'Estrange on the statement he has made. He has risen again in my estimation.
County Management (Amendment) Bill, 1972: Second Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute:—
"Dáil Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill on the grounds that the appointment of rate collector should be made a function of the Local Appointments Commission under the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, instead of making it merely an executive function under the County Managements Acts."
—(Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick(Cavan)).
I had better leave the House before the Minister riles me.
I do not intend to rile anybody during the course of my contribution. I am a little surprised at the length of time the debate has taken, approximately nine hours. The debate generated a great deal of heat and some hot air. It may have been naïve of me to have expected that the House would have accepted this simple Bill without some noise being generated. From my own experience as a county councillor and as a politician I know that the mention of the words "rate collector" and the question of their appointment has always been a contentious matter and has always generated some heat and I suppose one could have expected that to have been the case on this occasion when I was sounding the death knell of a system that has continued in operation for many years and as to the merits of which some doubts have been expressed.
Fine Gael in particular seemed to be very concerned as to my motives in introducing the Bill. I am disappointed at this because since I became Minister I have strived to put my own stamp on my Department and where I felt improvements were needed and I was in a position to carry them out I have tried to do so. In my experience as a county councillor I found the process of selecting rate collectors distasteful and never agreed with it. From discussions with my colleagues and with members of county councils of various parties, I have found a general dislike on their part also of being involved in that method of selection. However, the onus fell on me as Minister to avail of some opportunity to correct the situation and I brought in this simple Bill proposing that the method be changed and that it become an executive function and that the method of appointment be similar to the method of selection employed for similar type posts in the local authorities.
It is possible to go further and insist, by way of an order under the 1926 Act, that the selection be made through the Local Appointments Commission. The Local Appointments Commission has, however, generally been dealing with appointments of a senior nature. I will come to the type of appointments that at present are made in the manner I suggest in my Bill, by the county manager, using the methods and the regulations laid down for him. There have never been any complaints about that system.
During the course of the debate— and this surprised me—many contradictory statements were made. Deputies contradicted themselves and Deputies on the same benches contradicted statements made by their colleagues. There were many hares raised and a lot of the discussion was irrelevant. I shall as far as possible confine myself to the facts of the situation.
My motives, which were doubted here, were completely genuine. My motivation arises probably in the main from my own knowledge and experience as a county councillor. If the House does not accept that, there is nothing I can do about it. I brought the matter before my colleagues in the Government. They agreed with me. The party discussed the Bill. Here it is before the House. I have found, since the Bill was announced, there has been a general welcome for it from the community and from county councillors. Indeed, many county councils have of their own volition already abolished the system of appointing rate collectors and instances were given of local authorities where a different system is employed. Cork was mentioned. The office system of collection is used in many county council areas. Generally, there has not been any objection to what I have been doing. There may be some people who will suggest that I am taking away some power from county councils, whereas one should be moving in the direction of increasing the power and decision-making authority of the councillors sitting in committee in their councils. I agree with that procedure and have tried as far as possible, and will continue to do so, to give the councillors more say in the operation of local authority affairs and local government affairs generally and to devolve as many functions and as much decision-making as I can from the central Local Government Department down to the local authority. I do not want to go into that now; I have mentioned it before. This is a continuing process; I am adding to it all the time and in that way I am strengthening the local authorities, making them more real and, I hope, more interesting for the councillors who are members of them.
It is a bit galling that Fine Gael should project themselves here as paragons of virtue when, on a previous occasion when there was a free vote of the House, the vast majority of them voted against any change in the existing rate collector system. It is unrealistic for people like Deputy Garret FitzGerald to present his party as the one that will do the big clean-up: they had the opportunity before when in Government and when his party were in power many prominent members of that party voted against change when they could easily have voted for it, if all the Deputy said about Fine Gael were true. I do not accept that it is true. I see the name of Deputy Coogan, who spoke near the end of the debate for Fine Gael, at the top of the alphabetical list of those who voted against this change when he had the opportunity to vote for it. Deputy Cosgrave voted to retain the existing system of appointment of rate collectors; so did the then Deputy J.J. Costello, Deputy Donegan and Deputy Oliver Flanagan. Politicians who try to project themselves as paragons of virtue are walking on very thin ice because history and past events can always be found to disprove them and show them up in their true light. That is the only test: one can only be judged by one's performance.
(Cavan): We agree with what you are doing now but we want you to do it properly.
One of the most disgusting aspects of the Coalition——
(Cavan): On a point of order, the Minister obviously quoted from some document. Perhaps he would tell us what it is?
I will. It was the Dáil Report of the debate on the City and County Management Bill, 1954. The date is not on my photostat copy but I shall give it before I conclude.
(Cavan): Perhaps the Minister would now tell us how the Fianna Fáil Deputies voted?
(Interruptions.)
Irrespective of the date, does the Minister know how Fianna Fáil voted?
Subject to correction, that debate took place on 29th March, 1955.
That was the Act which restored some power to the local authorities—was it not? The Minister cannot get away with this kind of——
The Minister is entitled to reply. There should be no more interruptions.
Let the Minister read out how they all voted.
Any member of the public who reads the Dáil Report of the nine or ten hours of this debate——
Could I ask the Minister for the names of the 17 people who voted for the change?
The Chair does not want any interruptions.
Anybody who reads these reports will see for himself——
(Cavan): The Minister is misleading the House.
——how true are the allegations made by Fine Gael speakers and how pure they really are. It can be seen that they are not as pure as they pretend to be.
(Interruptions.)
(Cavan): There will be a Committee Stage of this Bill.
I do not like to go back too far but I had to go back to the last occasion on which this matter was discussed here.
(Interruptions.)
The Chair has repeatedly said that interruptions are disorderly.
I think the Minister deserves them.
The House deserves that a speaker should be heard without interruption.
This debate has generated much comment about the concern by the Opposition regarding political jobbery and I want to put my view on record about the political jobbery that took place during the last Coalition Government and the one before that. It was so bad that it nauseated many people and, in fact, it was the greatest recruiting factor for Fianna Fáil cumainn because people were so disgusted with the tactics of the Coalition Government at that time. I gave an example last night; I did not want to do so but the tone of the debate was not decided by me. I am only replying to what has been said. Anybody who remembers the proposal by the Opposition in Government to carry out drainage on the Corrib will recall the statement made by the person appointed to look after this work, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Works, that nobody would be employed on that drainage scheme who had any connections with the Fianna Fáil Party and that he would go to the ends of the earth to find somebody to do the work but would never employ a Fianna Fáil person.
He was quite right.
Is that on record?
That statement was printed in the newspapers and he was very proud of it afterwards when he was asked if the statement was true.
A Deputy
What jersey was the Minister wearing that time?
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order, is this relevant?
The Minister is entitled to reply to points made.
But is it relevant? We are ruled out of order if we raise——
Deputy Belton is very concerned now as to whether what I am saying is relevant but Deputies from his side of the House proceeded in this vein for hours. I do not intend to continue in that vein; this is just my one effort to correct the impression that Fine Gael tried to create that everything was so pure on their part. In power, Fine Gael and Labour were disgusting. God help Ireland if they ever get back in power.
Would the Minister name the Fianna Fáil Deputies who voted in that division?
I gave the reference and if the Deputy is so interested he can read it for himself. He will have plenty of time to read it tonight.
Would the Minister not come clean about it?
Will the Deputy allow the Minister to conclude?
But what he is saying is completely irrelevant.
Bobby, you were only 17 then; forget about it.
I was worried because there were no jobs available in the country.
It was a liberalisation measure, unlike this one.
The House should allow the Minister to proceed.
There are very few jobs today.
(Interruptions.)
The House should allow the Minister to proceed.
Much of what has been said here was based on suspicion and I suppose I am entitled to be suspicious also but I suspect the motive behind the amendment which Deputy Fitzpatrick has put down is in some way based on the assumption that I originally intended that the Local Appointments Commission would make this appointment and that that is what was intended when the Government first decided this issue and that I then changed my mind and made it an executive function or conceived the intention that it should be an executive function in the Bill rather than a matter for the Local Appointments Commission. This is not true. I am sorry I interrupted Deputy Fitzpatrick and other members of his party when they continued to make that assumption during the debate and when they continued to allege that this happened. I should like to put on record the Government Information Bureau statement I authorised on the occasion of the announcement of this Bill. I wish to put it on record because my integrity is in question, my honesty has been challenged and my intentions have been doubted.
Who arranged that the Government Information Bureau would issue this statement?
I said I authorised the statement.
No, the Minister did not.
The record will show that the Minister said he authorised the statement.
The statement was issued on 22nd September, 1972, and it stated:
The following statement was issued today by the Government Information Bureau on behalf of the Minister for Local Government, Mr. Robert Molloy, TD.
The Minister for Local Government has had under consideration for some time the method of appointment of county council rate collectors. At present, appointments to these posts are reserved by law to the elected members of county councils and in practice the selection of candidates is effected by ballot of the councillors. This inevitably involves canvassing of the members by or on behalf of candidates thus placing the members in an invidious position. The Minister has come to the conclusion that these posts should be filled in the same manner as all other local authority posts. The Government have authorised the introduction of the necessary legislation.
That statement means that the posts are filled as an executive function by the manager and the method of selection is laid down by way of regulation.
Are the methods similar in all local authorities?
Yes. Deputy L'Estrange read from an article which he said was in the Irish Independent. The article purported to quote something I said and, because I did not deny it, he alleges the article was true. Of course, for a politician that is an extraordinary assumption to make. I did not make any reference to the article but a second article appeared in the Irish Independent on the 4th November, 1972 and I replied to that. The second article was written under the name of a political correspondent. Because it was not published in full in the newspaper and because I have been accused by Deputy L'Estrange of not denying the statement that it was to be done originally by LAC, I should like to put my reply on record. The letter is addressed to Mr. Chris Glennon, Irish Independent, Middle Abbey Street, Dublin 1, and it states:
A Chara,
I am directed by the Minister for Local Government to refer to your article in the Irish Independent of 4th instant dealing with the County Management (Amendment) Bill. There is no foundation in fact for a number of the statements in that article.
The Minister did not state that selection of county rate collectors would be made by the Local Appointments Commissioners: please see attached copy of the official statement issued at the time by the Government Information Bureau.
It is not true that "all other local authority posts" are filled through the Commission. The posts filled through the Commission are only a minority of local offices and comprise (a) offices of Chief Executive Officer of a local authority (b) professional offices (c) such other offices as the Minister with the concurrence of the Commissioners declares to be offices to which the Act of 1926 applies. Offices coming under category (c) are usually the more senior posts for which a competition on a national rather than a local basis is considered appropriate.
There is nothing in the Bill to say that selection will not be made through the Commission: indeed the proposed amendment will leave the way open to the Minister, should this course be considered desirable, to seek the concurrence of the Commissioners to a declaration applying the Act of 1926 to the office of rate collectors. While no definite decision has been made it must be pointed out that posts of this type are not normally filled through the Commission.
It is not true that "the only real change will be that the councillors will be canvassed not for the job of rate collectors but for themselves to undertake a further canvassing of the County Manager". If selection is made through the Commission this will not arise. If selection is made by the Manager the process of selection will be that normally followed by him in relation to other posts at present, that is appointment will be made either by promotion or by open competition conducted in accordance with stringent requirements laid down by regulations and circular letters from the Department.
I have been directed to place these facts before you in order to afford you an opportunity of setting the record straight.
On a point of order, I should like to know if the Minister considers it right and proper that Mr. Chris Glennon who is affectionately known to all Members of this House should be addressed by "A Chara"? Would it not be more appropriate to address him in a more affectionate manner?
(Interruptions.)
I want to make it clear that my intention in bringing in this Bill was for the sole purpose of removing the appointment of rate collectors from the political arena. I think practically all Members will agree with that intention. The Bill contains machinery to provide for that change. Making it an executive function enables the manager to make the appointment and there are procedures and regulations laid down with which he must comply. There are three ways in which he can have the selection made. One is by way of promotion of a member of his staff—and this is easily understood—and the other ways are by interview or examination. With regard to interviews, I should like to read from circular letter E.L. 7/52 of 23rd June 1952:
Care should be taken in the constitution of interview boards set up to advise local authorities in relation to promotions and fresh recruitment. The members of the boards should always be chosen to ensure that their recommendations will command confidence. It is desirable, in constituting interview boards to vary the personnel from appointment to appointment. It is recommended that, wherever it is practicable, the procedure of drawing at least two members of the interview board from outside the county in which the appointment is made be generally adopted.
It can be seen that under the system I am proposing the manager is obliged to set up an interview board and to have two persons from outside the county. The normal practice is that he has two persons from within the county, usually from his own staff or he may have one from another local authority in the area. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of appointments have been made since that system was devised——
(Cavan): I have experienced 25 years under a former county manager in Cavan and that was enough for me.
The regulations I mentioned are the ones at present applicable in the case of interview boards as set out in the circular. In the case of the rate collector position the same qualifications will apply as at present. There are four points that must be taken into consideration. One is character, the others are age, health and education. The qualifications are the same as at present and the regulations are the same as at present apply to appointments made by the manager exercising his executive function. I intend to operate under this system. I think it is the most suitable system for this post. It has come across quite clearly to me here, and has reaffirmed my conviction that what I am doing is right, through the many references to the need to ensure when making an appointment that the person should if at all possible have some knowledge of the area and of the type of life in the area. It was suggested that it should be kept as local as possible.
May I refer to the last occasion on which this question was discussed? It was an Adjournment debate on 18th April of this year. Deputy Desmond said:
The Minister should consider amending the County Management Act, 1940, in terms of the reserved function. He could easily insist that there be introduced the system that operates in the urban area generally. There was substantial variations available to the Minister. I am referring now to county council rate collector appointments. The whole procedure could be devolved on the Local Appointments Commission. I do not think that is necessary. I think we have a much more effective system in operation. In Dublin Corporation we have a special system for the creation of such collectorships. It is a question of internal competition. Notices are made out, basic educational standards apply, a full interview system is in operation by an impartial general board composed of representatives of the legal, the valuation and the personnel departments of that corporation. They do the general interviewing and candidates emerge on merit. This is the fairest system and the most effective.
What I am suggesting is in line with what Deputy Desmond was asking for on that occasion so I expect that Deputy Desmond and his party will support me in what I am proposing to do.
It is interesting to hear the Fine Gael spokesman making the case for their amendment, a weak case really, and implying that this is the view of the Fine Gael Party up and down the country. I want to assure him that it is not and I should like to quote for him a statement made at the Ballinasloe Urban Council recently, as reported in the Connaught Tribune of November 17th. The comments of the Fine Gael people are very interesting. Their thinking is exactly along the lines of the Fianna Fáil Bill. I quote:
Ballinasloe Urban Council agreed unanimously at Tuesday night's meeting—on the proposal of councillor Gus Hynes—to press for the appointment of rate collectors by competitive examination.
Councillor Hynes said the abolition of the present system, if it did away with abuses, was to be welcomed, but they should be careful about what replaced it.
"If the Local Appointments Commission took over, this would be a move away from decentralisation," he pointed out. "It would be better if each County Council held competitive examinations and placed the applicants in order of merit."
Councillor Pat Galvin said that there should also be an oral examination. It was agreed to incorporate this suggestion in the resolution, which will be sent to the Department of Local Government.
Deputies have asked me to say who made representatitons to me, whose views were submitted to me. They implied that I said in my opening speech that I had gone around consulting. I did not go around consulting on this matter. I had sufficient knowledge of my own, sufficient representations being made to me and I think I have made a very wise decision which I hope this House will support.
If and when the Bill is enacted, the position will be that the appointments will be made by local authorities either by internal promotion, which was the method Deputy Desmond was referring to, or on the result of a competitive examination or interview. I have explained how that can be set up. I should like to emphasise that the bulk of local authority offices are filled in this way at present. I can give examples. All of the following are appointed in this way: staff officer, second fire officer (other than second fire officer in Dublin County Borough), clerical officer, library assistant, clerk typist, rate collector (other than county rate collector), rent collector (wholetime and parttime posts), gas slot meter collector, storekeeper, law and conveyancing clerk, clerk-of-works, referencer, rate inspector, rents inspector, section officer, assistant section officer, senior executive officer, development officer, draughtsman, draughtsman grade I, work study and organisation and methods officer, personnel officer, quantity surveyor's clerk.
(Cavan): They are the very reasons why I want the system changed.
I have no evidence up to now of any allegations being made that that system is not working satisfactorily. If such were so I would be aware of it. It is rather late in the day for Deputy Fitzpatrick to be protesting because in practice it has worked, the experience has been good and the system has been successful. All I am suggesting is to add to that list of responsible persons the rate collectors for the county areas. Already the other rate collectors are on that list.
(Cavan): It may have worked well in some counties; it has been a public scandal in others.
The introduction of the Local Appointments Commission is not to be recommended. We must try to keep these posts local. The competition should be a local type competition and as far as possible a local person with some local knowledge should be the one who is successful. They would be the people who would be most acceptable to the community and, I think to the councillors who are quite willing to concede this power; as expressed by that councillor in Ballinasloe they would be quite pleased that appointment should be by way of local examination.
It is not correct to say that the manager will now be the sole person involved in the selection of the rate collector. He is bound, in practice, to accept the person recommended to him by the interview board which has been set up. The candidates will be marked according to their merits and their ability and assessed by way of interview. The person deemed to be most suitable for the position will be recommended to the manager and, in practice, he is obliged to appoint that person.
On a point of clarification, did I hear the Minister say that the manager has to accept the nominee that is given to him by the board he sets up?
I said, in practice, the manager is obliged——
What did the Minister say? I had an experience——
The Deputy can read the report when it is finished but that is what I said.
That he must accept?
To the pure all things are pure.
In my city a board recommended a certain person for a job as a rent collector and the manager refused to appoint him.
The Deputy is entitled to ask a question. He has now asked his question.
I want to clarify it. Did the Minister say that the manager must accept a nominee recommended by the board?
What I said was that in practice the manager is obliged to accept the person nominated by the board.
The Minister did not use the words "in practice".
I did not say it was obligatory but, if the manager did not accept the person recommended by the board, he would have to have good reasons.
Yes, because having received the nomination from the board the manager has to make inquiries from the Garda and the local parish priest.
He has to have good reasons for not complying with the recommendation by the board.
He has to get a medical certificate.
What I said I stand over.
I speak with over 20 years' experience of this business.
In practice he is obliged to accept the recommendation of the board. This has been the practice. A number of Deputies were concerned about the method of collection. They felt that this Bill might in some way act as an obstacle against changing from the rate collectorship arrangement to office collection, or any other method which might be deemed to be more efficient and more economical for the area.
Some local authorities have already done away with the appointment of rate collectors as we know them, and are carrying out the collection through offices and have officers working permanently on the county council staff to whom these warrants were issued. They can handle quite a large number of warrants. I understand that in Cork County not all of the collection is yet done through the offices but a very big percentage of it is. Perhaps the move is in that direction.
The most successful part of the collection is done by the offices.
If this Bill is passed and becomes law, and the manager has the function of setting up this board and eventually appointing the rate collector, he can do it that way. When a vacancy arises in his local authority area, he can decide to review the whole collection system. He can discuss this with the members, but it is his function finally to decide it.
(Cavan): Is the Minister sure of that?
If he decides that it would be more efficient, more economical and of greater benefit to the rate-payers in the area, to transfer the collection of that warrant from an individual rate collector to office collection, he can do so. He can do it at the moment and he will be able to do it after this Bill is passed. As has been proved in many areas, this can be very beneficial but I am not giving any explicit direction about it because I realise that there are local factors which decide those issues and that, in some areas, it is found that to do it through the office is the most suitable and the cheapest way of doing it and the way which best pleases the rate-payers.
I realise that in other areas with a large rural community it is not deemed to be suitable. I will leave that decision to the manager who can have consultations in his area and who knows the area best. He can discuss it with members of the county council. The option will still be open to the manager to move towards office collection if he deems it to be appropriate. I was asked by some Deputy if the manager will be compelled to continue to appoint rate collectors where these positions are in existence. He will not be so compelled. He can decide on which method of collection he desires to have.
Having had experience of the County Management Act and the work of county managers over a long period— and there are members older than I who have longer experience of dealing with local and public authorities—I thought it was rather unfair to make the accusations that were made about individual county managers and county managers collectively. This function is only another one at the end of a long list of similar functions they exercise in the appointment of staff to the local authorities. It is no great change so far as they are concerned. The implication was that they would not be able to resist pressures.
Down through the years they have dealt with appointments and vacancies which arose and it is unfair to them, and it questions their integrity, to allege that, if pressure is exercised on them, it will succeed. We all know that it does not succeed very often. Since I became Minister I have not approached county managers on these matters but some years ago when I was a Deputy, in making ordinary representations to them, I never found that my representations had any effect. I am sure that was the experience of all Members of the House. There should be general agreement on that.
We should compliment the managers on the work they have done, and we should be proud that we have people with such a high degree of integrity and intelligence working in our local authorities. We should do nothing to belittle them or the responsible jobs they carry out. I have no fear that any manager will be so weak as to be influenced by pressure from some Deputy, or some relation who wants his son to be appointed a rate collector. If that is the case, why has not that type of malpractice surfaced in the filling of the other appointments?
(Cavan): The Minister will not listen to what people are telling him.
It is very difficult to pay much heed to what the Deputy said because, in the course of his contribution, he said that he had no faith in interview boards.
(Cavan): I did not.
That is what he said.
(Cavan): I said I had no faith in local type interviews.
He said he had no faith in interview boards. In his amendment he suggests that the Local Appointments Commission should make these appointments, but he can have no faith in them either because they must operate through a board. He wants it done through the LAC which would remove it away from the local scene and it would become a national type competition. We know from experience that the Local Appointments Commission have a very heavy burden to carry in trying to make fair and reasonable decisions on all the applications before them at present. If we put the position of rate collector in the Local Appointments Commission pipeline we will add to their work and make it slower. Also if we add the position of rate collector, why not add all the other positions which are decided at present by way of local competition with the manager exercising his executive function?
As I said, the option is still there. If, after operating the Bill as it is proposed here, with the manager making these appointments with the help of his selection board, and using his executive function, it is found not to be successful, and if all the things the Opposition Deputies suggest turn out to be true and we become aware of it, and people are dissatisfied with the method of appointment of rate collectors, it is still open to the Minister, under the 1926 Act, to make an order requiring that in future these positions be filled through the Local Appointments Commission. I do not want to start off at that level. I want to put it into the local authority pipeline the same as the other positions and, after some time has passed, if the Opposition feel it is not successful from experience, it can be reconsidered.
It would be wrong to put it under the Local Appointments Commission straight away. The right decision is to do it as suggested in the Bill. I appeal to Deputy Fitzpatrick to give my proposal a chance to operate, knowing that if, at some future date, his is deemed the better way, or that the one I am suggesting does not work, it is very simple to make an order and include it in the Local Appointments Commission list.
In conclusion I should like to assure the House very strongly that, in anything I have said, or, in anything any Deputy has said, no slur is being cast on any person who acted as a county councillor, or who was appointed as a rate collector, or who offered himself for appointment as a rate collector. There is no positive evidence in my Department of any bribery or malpractices that could be deemed to be illegal. If there were, action would be taken. I stated in my introductory remarks that allegations were being made. The situation as it existed up to now was wide open to allegations because of the system. It proved an embarrassment, and it is only honest to say it was an embarrassment, and that deep down every county councillor will welcome this move. The members of local authorities up to now were obliged to operate a system which was laid down for them by law and the fault was in the system, not in the councillors. The aim of the Bill is to change the system and relieve the councillors of this involvement in individual staff appointments. So far as rate collectors are concerned, there is, needless to say, no reflection on them, their honesty or their integrity. Their honesty and integrity are fully recognised.
(Cavan): In the course of his reply, the Minister referred to a previous attempt to make this appointment an executive function and he suggested——
No—the previous occasion when the appointment of rate collectors was discussed in the House. I did not mean the function but changing it from election by councillors.
(Cavan): It is more or less the same thing. He suggested that certain members of the Fine Gael Party had opposed the change. Will the Minister be fair and agree that not one member of the Fianna Fáil Party supported the proposal made by the then Deputies McQuillan and Sheldon? A couple of Fine Gael people did support it but not one member of the Fianna Fáil Party did so.
I accept that, but I read out that list to show that it was wrong and false on your part to promote yourselves as the paragons of virtue.
I asked the Minister for an assurance that under no circumstances would he interfere with this system.
I have no intention of interfering in appointments made by way of the executive function by managers. I can give that assurance wholeheartedly to the Deputy as Minister for Local Government.
That is all I want.
That is not to say that as a Deputy I will not continue to make the ordinary representations which every Deputy is asked to make.
(Cavan): Ah! Deputy Molloy, as Deputy Molloy, will make representations to the county manager and at the same time, will be Minister for Local Government. The cat is out of the bag now.
We are seeking to eliminate corruption from this House and the Minister must clarify that last statement.
I am putting the amendment.
Is the Minister for Local Government going to make representations as Minister?
Will the Deputy please allow the Chair to put the question?
The Deputy is putting a question.
The Deputy may not put a question. That is your type of order in the House.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 50.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard C.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- French, Seán.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Des.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Burke, Richard.
- Burton, Philip.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Fox, Billy.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Lawrence.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Donovan, John.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Reilly, Paddy.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Thornley, David.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Andrews an d S. Browne; Níl, Deputies Timmins and L'Estrange.
Question declared carried.
Question: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time" put and declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 29th November, 1972.