Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 1946

Vol. 32 No. 3

Local Government Bill, 1945—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 17:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
() A copy of the report of any local inquiry under sub-section (1) of this section shall be sent to the rating authority concerned at least 14 days before the issue of a notification under sub-section (2) of this section. —(Senator Sir John Keane.)

When the House adjourned, I was engaged in defending myself against the friendly accusation that I had introduced Arlidge's case to the political conscience of the Irish people. I did nothing of the sort. As a lawyer, I was familiar with the fact that Arlidge's case had decided one small point; but it rested with the Department of Local Government to circulate to Senators and Deputies excerpts from that case, not as proving the legal point but as trying to justify a Departmental practice.

Arlidge's case was a decision of the House of Lords, if a decision were needed, that it was not illegal for the Minister to make a determination without disclosing the report and that, if such decision were questioned in a court of law, it was an unsound argument to say that until the report was published there could be no legal decision. I certainly have never questioned and, as far as I know, no responsible person in this country has ever questioned, that legal position. But as the Department chose to rely, not on the legal decision but on the expressions of opinion of the various judges who heard it and upon an erroneous statement of Sir John Simon, then Attorney General, in arguing, I thought it well to correct them, in so far as they desired to convey the opinion that the judges as a whole had been in favour of the rule of withholding the inspector's report.

I pointed out to this House that one judge only, out of eight who considered the matter, held that view; that four judges thought that, although there should not be an invariable rule of publishing, the report should be published in many or most cases; and that three judges were of opinion that it should always be published. Therefore, out of eight judges who considered it, seven refused to give their countenance to the position now taken up by the Minister. As a very misleading view of that case was published and circulated by the Department, I have taken this opportunity of correcting it.

A remark was also made that there was no point in calling the attention of this House to the Donaghmore Report, which considered not the legality of Arlidge's case—which the commission had no power to consider— but the desirability of its remaining law. Judges can only declare what the law is. They can have an opinion as to what the law should be; and the judges having given an opinion, the Donaghmore Commission was set up to consider how far that opinion was right. It is perfectly true that it was an English commission, and I think I would go further than the Minister in refusing to be bound in this country by English opinions because they are English, or by English precedents because they are English. But brains are international, and if an identical problem has been examined by people of the highest eminence, who have been able to investigate practices—the reasons, the law and the desirability of certain courses —it is pertinent to call the attention of this House to the conclusions at which they arrived, not because they are English conclusions, American conclusions or Kamschatka conclusions, but because they are conclusions by qualified people who have given their attention to the subject. Accordingly, I make no apology for having referred the House to the considered and concluded judgment on this particular subject of the body who sat to consider it.

I would call the Minister's attention to this—that whereas he and his Department have cited a statement of Sir John Simon, not then Lord Chancellor but a counsel arguing a case, a person who was acting according to his instructions and who would never be responsible for the truth of a statement of fact, when that commission came to examine whether Sir John's statement was true, they stated that the practice of departments was to publish a report only where there were special reasons for such a course. In other words, Sir John Simon was inaccurate and the practice in England was to publish the inspector's report where there were special reasons for such a course. I disclaimed earlier the intention of discussing any particular case—I am not going to do so—but I do call the Minister's attention to the fact. If the Minister is anxious to have the reference, it is about half-way down page 103 of the Report. I do call the Minister's attention to the fact that Sir John Simon's statement was contradicted by the very body who were appointed to go into the matter and that the result of their investigations was that they said that there were occasions when the departments did publish and that in their opinion the departments always should publish. Now, I can understand the Minister disagreeing with that conclusion. I am not going so far as to say that I entirely and unqualifiedly agree with it myself, which is my reason for having put down a more limited amendment. I call the Minister's attention to it because there have been so many misconceptions and misstatements in regard to this particular matter that they should be pinned down, and I hope that the Minister will meet them. I know that it is just about as difficult to corner the Minister as it would be to capture a particularly lively and athletic eel in a barrel of oil, but the Minister might realise that I am anxious to clear out of the way all misconceptions in this matter so that we can discuss it on the bedrock of fact.

I did not anticipate that I should have again to address myself to the particular arguments which Senator Kingsmill Moore advanced on the last day to justify the amendment of Senator Sir John Keane. But, since the matter has been raised, perhaps I should remind the House what the net issue between Senator Kingsmill Moore and myself seems to be. Listening to Senator Kingsmill Moore on the last day, I got the impression that he was representing to the House that, in relation to inquiries held under the Department of Local Government, it had been, in the earlier stages at least, the almost invariable practice to publish the report —it might, perhaps, more properly be described as a minute——

I did not say that.

Well, the report of the inspector, and that, in the course of time, this proper practice—in the view of Senator Kingsmill Moore and of Senator Sir John Keane—had been departed from. I do not think that I formed that impression because of any laxness in the attention which I was giving to the debate, and in particular to the remarks of Senator Kingsmill Moore. I took the opportunity this morning to refresh myself on what the Senator, according to the Official Report, actually said. If the House will bear with me for a moment I shall put these remarks before them, and I think that the general conclusion will be, in the case of those who are hearing them again, that they bear out—at least they afford me very good grounds for the impression which I formed as to the general drift of Senator Kingsmill Moore's remarks. At column 118 the Senator made this statement:

"There can be very little doubt that when these inquiries were first inaugurated the intention was that just as the inquiry itself was public so the conclusions of the person acting in a quasi-judicial office should also be made public."

Later on, in the same column, the Senator went on:

"I say that when these inquiries were first inaugurated, although there was no particular provision that the inspector's report should be published, I consider that that was probably the intention."

Well, at any rate in Senator Kingsmill Moore's mind and in mine, there was no doubt that these remarks were intended to convey that, from the outset, it was the intention that the report of the inspector should be published. I cannot place any other interpretation or any other meaning upon those words. In column 119 the Senator went on to say:—

"Departments, not merely the Department of Local Government in this country, but other Departments in this country and other Departments in other countries, have found it very convenient to keep reports secret."

Now, I should like to emphasise at this stage that I am not concerned with the practice of other Departments. What is at issue here is the practice of the Department of Local Government and Public Health, a practice which, no doubt, is based on very good reasons. Let me repeat again what the Senator said:—

"Departments, not merely the Department of Local Government in this country, but other Departments in this country and other Departments in other countries, have found it very convenient to keep reports secret. It was not a universal rule. Reports were published, but it was found convenient to have the power to keep them secret."

Now, there is a clear statement there, that reports were, as a general rule, published—but that when it was convenient the practice grew up of keeping them secret. Now, I am going to submit to the House that it has been, in fact, the very reverse: that from the very outset, so far as the Department of Local Government is concerned, it was the practice to keep them secret; that this was the general practice, and that on very rare occasions it has been departed from.

I am in agreement with the Minister on that.

I should be grateful if the Senator would not interrupt me. I am now traversing his case in the way in which he made it because I remember particularly that when I was making this case the last day a number of Senators thought that I had perhaps erroneously represented what Senator Kingsmill Moore had said. At column 121 the Senator, having referred to the views expressed by the Donaghmore Commission which, as Senator Ryan pointed out to the House, was dealing not with inquiries relating to matters of administration but with what might be described as judicial or quasi-judicial inquiries, reminded the House of what the recommendations of the Donaghmore Commission were in respect to the particular category of inquiry to which Senator Ryan referred and said:—

"It is the view that has been reinforced recently, because a habit has grown up in this Department not merely of withholding the inspector's report—now the habit of withholding an inspector's report naturally implies that prior to the development of this habit there was no withholding of the report and that the report was tendered to the public—which is sometimes done in England ... but of publishing a summary produced by a person or persons unknown which purports to be a finding of fact on the evidence. And those summaries are so mendacious, so totally devoid of any reasonable conclusion which any person with any training or skill could possibly draw from the evidence."

At column 127, Senator Kingsmill Moore interrupted me again to make his position clear and said:—

"My information is that, in the early days after the introduction of this system, the reports of local inquiries were frequently published. I do not say in this country, but in England."

Then he went on to say:—

"As far as I know for a very long time local government reports ..."

That relates, however, to another matter. Let me get back to the quotation to which I wish to draw attention.

Would the Minister not finish that quotation he has begun? It is: "As far as I know for a very long time local government reports have not been published in this country." That is a perfectly straightforward statement.

Let me remind the House that the first matter on which I joined issue with the Senator was that so far from it being the case which he wished the House to believe, that in the earlier days these reports were published, the fact is, that so far as I know and so far as there is any record, it was not the practice in the earlier days to publish these reports. When I opened with that statement the Senator intervened to say that his information was that in the earlier days after the introduction of this system the reports of local inquiries were frequently published. I submit that the general tenor of his remarks was to create the impression in my mind—I cannot speak for the mind of any Senator—but to create the impression in the mind of at least one attentive listener that his argument was that in the earlier days these reports were published and then the practice grew up gradually of withholding them from the public.

In the course of his speech, the Senator has referred to the practice of other Departments. I am not concerned with the practice of other Departments here, primarily and immediately. Because the matter has been brought in the course of this debate, I can say, if the Chair will permit me, that a very great distinction is drawn in law between a court of in quiry sitting under the Railways Regulation Act, which is the type of inquiry which may be instituted, if he thinks fit, by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the local inquiry of public inquiry, such as may be instituted by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. As I said, however, perhaps we can deal with that later. What I am concerned about is what has been the practice of the Department of Local Government in this country and in England because our practice derives from the English practice. Our local government law, as the Seanad no doubt knows, was closely assimilated, by an adaptation of enactments, to the local government code in Great Britain and it knows that our practice, too, derived from the English practice. I am not saying that it is a good thing that it derived from the English practice, and neither am I saying that it is a bad thing. I am merely addressing myself to the fact—the fact of what the practice was, whether it was good or bad.

On those points the only thing I can state first of all is what the law was —that the reports need not be published. I want, however, to refer to the judgment of the House of Lords and to point out that there seemed to be a weight of legal, or, should I say, of judicial, opinion on the side that it would be undesirable in most cases to publish these reports and that one judge, perhaps one of the most eminent members of that court, went on to say that it would in his view be quite contrary to the public interest to publish them in any circumstances.

Another judge, sitting in the same court, said that if they were to be published, it would, in his view, mean the end of Parliamentary responsibility so far as the Minister was concerned. These are the arguments on the merits for and against publication. There was no judge in that court who held, as Senator Sir John Keane's amendment asks the Seanad to hold, that invariably and in all circumstances the report of an inspector holding a local inquiry at the instance of the Minister for Local Government should be published. All the weight of judicial opinion was the other way and, mind you, law lords were not inexperienced administrators. They had sat in Cabinets, they had been the heads, some of them, of Departments and one of them, Lord Moulton, was a practical man of affairs with a great deal of practical experience. Nevertheless, the whole weight of that court, so far as its judgment and opinion upon a matter of practice rather than law was concerned, was that it would be a bad practice, and therefore, it would be a bad thing, if the law compelled the Minister for Local Government, whoever he might be, or the Local Government Board in Great Britain in this instance, willy nilly, to publish all reports of the inspectors who held local inquiries, whether the Local Government Board or the Minister thought it wise to do it or not.

Let me remind the Seanad again that the purpose of Sir John Keane's amendment and the purpose of the two very able speeches we have listened to from Senator Kingsmill Moore, is to persuade the Seanad to adopt an amendment to this Bill which would make it obligatory on the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to publish the reports of his inspector in all the circumstances contemplated by Section 30 of the Act; and, of course, once we accept it in relation to the circumstances covered by Section 30 of the Act, we would be driven inevitably to accept it in respect of all inquiries irrespective of their nature. So much on the merits of the case as to whether the report of an inspector should be published or not.

Let me come back again to the question of the practice because it was on that point that I first joined issue with Senator Kingsmill Moore. I am not going to quote again that House of Lords judgment but I am going to refer to a very specific statement of the then Attorney-General who appeared on behalf of the appellants, that is, on behalf of the Local Government Board of Great Britain. His statement is embodied in the law reports. It was not challenged by the counsel appearing for the respondents in this case and was not controverted or questioned in any way by any one of the judges in delivering their judgment. This is what the Attorney-General said:

"The inquiry referred to is the ordinary local inquiry with which Parliament was familiar. The holding of local inquiries by the Local Government Board is directed by many statutes...."

Then on the point touching the issue of practice, he says:

"and it has always been the practice of the board to treat the reports of the inspectors at such inquiries as confidential documents for their own use."

I do not wish to worry the House by quoting extensively from the judgments of the law lords, but it would appear from those judgments that they themselves had no doubt whatever as to what the practice was and they did not question or challenge the statement of the Attorney-General in one iota.

Here is the position I find myself in. I am a layman. I have to seek the advice of others in regard to the law I am told that it was not the practice to publish these reports, at least not originally the practice to publish these reports—on occasion, perhaps they may have been published. I am not going to say it has been invariably the practice to withhold them; on occasions these reports may have been published. These reports, let me remind the Seanad, may touch a variety of matters. While it may be quite in order to publish the report in one case, it may be contrary to the public interest to publish it in another case. In general, I am told, so far as local inquiries held under the ægis, or with the authority, of the Minister for Local Government are concerned, it has not been the invariable or general practice to publish the report of the inspector.

That statement of mine is challenged. I go back to the leading case in this matter and I find, from a statement made by the man appearing on behalf of the Government of Great Britain— that is, in fact, for whom he was appearing—that it was the invariable practice to withhold those reports. I go through the judgments and I find the same statement, though not in precisely the same words, in a number of those judgments. Lord Justice Hamilton's judgment has been referred to; he stated:

"The practice of the board, like that of its predecessor, the Poor Law Board, has always been to dispose by correspondence of appeals, even on important matters, and, in treating the inspector's report as confidential, it is only following an old and well-known practice."

I have shown conclusively to the House that the original practice was the same as the existing practice. That was, may I repeat, in the vast majority of cases, not to publish the inspector's report.

Let me come to another point. It was urged by a Senator on the last occasion that we had initiated a new practice, for which there was no parallel to be found in Great Britain, in so far as we publish what purports to be a finding of fact on the evidence and, with it, a summary. We do not publish a summary of evidence. We do set out certain things which have emerged in the course of the inquiry—certain things which, in the view of the Minister, are of grave significance. In order that no gloss may be put upon them, it has been the practice sometimes to quote the evidence touching these matters fairly extensively.

Selected portions.

In general, it has been evidence that could not be challenged. More often than not, it contained admissions from persons immediately concerned. On the basis not of these excerpts but of a study of all the evidence elicited by the inspector at the inquiry, we give our findings. It has been suggested that there is something new in that. I have here a document which relates to a number of matters that are customarily dealt with by the Department of Local Government in Great Britain. It contains the first report of the Royal Commission on Local Government and the date of publication is the year 1925. The volume is to be found in the Library under the title "Parliamentary Papers, H.C., 1924-5." On page 155 of the Report of this Royal Commission of Inquiry on Local Government in Great Britain, I find this paragraph:

"It was not until recently——"

This is not an ex parte statement, made on behalf of a client by learned counsel before a court or tribunal; it is the statement of a Royal Commission:—

"It was not until recently the practice of the Minister to give reasons in any detail for his decision to make an Order for the proposal contained in the representation or for varying the proposal or for refusing an Order."

That corroborates what I have said as to the argument of the Attorney-General in 1914. I think we may take that point as settled—that it was not the practice, until recently, to publish any report. Then, this paragraph goes on:—

"The letters by which his decision was announced to the local authorities concerned might include a brief statement of his reasons for refusing an Order but his general policy was to announce his decision without explanation. It followed that the recommendations contained in the inspector's report were not made public unless, as happened in certain instances, the inspector was subsequently examined on this point by a Parliamentary Committee."

I think I have shown that the original practice was not to publish the report. The practice has grown up of issuing with the findings a brief summary of the grounds on which the Minister has come to his decision. In the light of that, I am entitled to say that we have not introduced any innovation. We have not instituted a practice which was not contemplated by Parliament when, originally, this process of local inquiry was instituted. We have not deprived any person of any right which hitherto the law gave him or which he had acquired prescriptively or by precedent or long practice.

To dispose of another point which has created a certain amount of confusion, I may pass on to deal with a statement made by Senator Kingsmill Moore. He is not the first person to adduce this argument. Many others advanced it prior to him, but it was repeated by him on the last occasion and I should like to deal with it. That is the argument that, when the Minister for Industry and Commerce directs an inquiry into a railway accident, the Minister publishes the report of the inspector. He does. But the inquiry which the Minister for Industry and Commerce institutes into a railway accident is quite a different type of inquiry from that which is instituted as a local or public inquiry by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, because a formal inquiry which the Minister for Industry and Commerce sets up is a court of inquiry. It is not a local inquiry; it is not a mere inspectorial inquiry. It is a court of inquiry and is so designated by law.

The authority for setting up these courts of inquiry into railway accidents is to be found in the Railways Regulation Act, 1871, that is 34 and 35 Vict., and the relevant phraseology is as follows:—

"The Board of Trade may direct an inquiry to be made by an inspector into the cause of any accident, and where it appears to the Board of Trade, either before or after the commencement of any such inquiry, that a more formal investigation of the accident... is expedient the Board of Trade may, by order, direct such investigation to be held and with respect to such investigation the following provisions shall have effect."

Perhaps, I should remind the Seanad at this stage that, by the Adaptation of Enactments Act, the Minister for Industry and Commerce here exercises in respect to railways and transport generally the functions of the Board of Trade. If this more formal investigation contemplated by the Railways Regulation Act is to be set on foot the statute goes on to prescribe that the following provisions shall have effect:—

"(1) The Board of Trade may... appoint any person or persons possessing legal or special knowledge to assist an inspector in holding the same or may direct the county court judge...to hold the same with the assistance of an inspector or any other assessor or assessors named in the order."

Quite obviously, the very prescription or proviso that a person of legal knowledge may be joined with the inspector in holding this investigation demarcates immediately the type of investigation which may be instituted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce under this Act from that which may be set on foot by the Minister for Local Government as a public inquiry. Then listen to this—the second provision:

"the persons holding any such formal investigation (hereinafter referred to as the court) shall hold the same in open court."

Now, I think that that immediately invests this inquiry with the character of a judicial proceeding. The third proviso opens with these words:

"The court shall have, for the purpose of such investigation, all the powers of a court of summary jurisdiction, when acting as a court in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction and all the powers of an inspector under this Act."

The following powers are set out in extenso. The last provision from the point of view of what has been argued here is, perhaps, the most important. The last provision is:

"The inspector making an inquiry into any accident and the court holding an investigation of any accident shall make a report to the board stating the cause of the accident and all the circumstances attending the same...and the Board of Trade shall cause every such report to be made in public in such manner as they think expedient."

It required a special Act of Parliament, a special legal enactment, to make it binding upon the Board of Trade to publish the results of these particular inquiries, these special courts, which they set up to investigate railway accidents.

I have argued, and I am justified in arguing, that a local inquiry is not a court. I doubt if I would go as far as even to agree that in many cases it exercises quasi-judicial functions. It may in some—admittedly, if it is a case of the acquisition of land or if questions of title arise. I think, beyond matters relating to the title of property, I would not ascribe to a local inquiry quasi-judicial functions because I do not think that in general they have quasi-judicial functions of any sort. An inspector goes down, not as a judge, but as an investigator. Perhaps in the same way, if there were a defalcation or a robbery, I would bring in an auditor, not as a judge but as a person to find out for me precisely the sort of facts which might be adduced in evidence. If the police receive a complaint that a house has been burgled, they send along a competent officer who will examine the premises and who will, perhaps, say: "Yes, the house has been broken into." He will see whether the desks have been rifled and that officer will come back and report: "Yes, I think there was a burglary there." On the other hand, if a person in business finds that his accounts do not balance, if he has some difficulty in reconciling his cash position with his books, he will bring in, in the first instance, an auditor who will go through the books and report to him: "Yes, it is quite true; I find that there is so much money missing that cannot be accounted for." When he makes that report he is not acting in a judicial manner, he is merely eliciting a fact. A great many of the local public inquiries which are held can elicit facts, not by the mere consideration of verbal evidence but if you like by what I might call the acquisition and procurement of documents which are capable of being appraised in only one way.

That is not accurate.

If, for instance, it is clear that a stocktaking sheet indicates that there is such-and-such a quantity of stores in stock and if, on the other hand, the incoming stores book and the stores issue book indicate that there should be a much larger quantity of stores in stock, it does not require learned counsel to assist an inspector to make an ordinary arithmetical calculation which will establish the fact that there is a shortage in the stores.

The great majority of public inquiries, strange as it may appear, are directed towards establishing—it is very difficult to find a term for it— physical circumstances of that description. Then technical inquiries are, in general, conducted by technical people. We initiate them very often because in order to carry out some engineering scheme, such as a sewerage or water scheme, the local authority will require to borrow and the Minister for Local Government will have to sanction the borrowing. There are, perhaps, a number of concurrent purposes that may be served by the holding of an inquiry into the technical merits of an engineering scheme, but the principal purpose of the inquiry is to enable the Minister to satisfy himself whether he would be justified in allowing the local authority concerned to borrow perhaps some hundreds of thousands of pounds to carry out the scheme. It is the Minister who is primarily concerned in such an inquiry. While it is true that technical people will come along and give evidence, ultimately it would be, in a matter of that sort, on the advice of the technician, that the Minister would act. As I said on the last occasion, the Minister as a layman would be very ill-advised to override the report of his inspector. As the Minister has to take final responsibility either for sanctioning or withholding sanction to the proposal to raise a loan for these purposes, there is no point in publishing in that case, any more than in some of the others I have mentioned, the report of an inspector or even a summary of the findings. Having read in this case the reports of his technical advisers on the evidence tendered, the Minister will say to himself: "Well, I do not think this is a scheme on which £100,000 of the ratepayers' money should be spent and, therefore, I will not sanction it."

Perhaps I have occupied the time of the Seanad unduly in dealing with this matter, but I think I have established at any rate the following facts—firstly, that it was not the practice, certainly not the practice in old times and certainly not the long-established practice, to publish the reports of inspectors; secondly, so far from there having been a reversal of practice by suppressing or withholding a report and publishing a summary, that the contrary has been the case, that the practice has grown up of publishing a summary of the grounds on which the Minister bases his findings; and thirdly, that there is a very marked difference, a difference in character and nature, not a difference merely in accidents or appearance —appearances may appear to a layman to be very similar when the essential characters are quite different—as for instance between the court of inquiry established by the Minister for Industry and Commerce under the Railways Regulation Acts and the local inquiry which is instituted by the Minister for Local Government under the powers vested in him by several statutes. Let me repeat that there is a difference, a fundamental difference in character and nature, between those two sets of inquiries.

The fourth point is that, in very many cases, the issues are determined very largely on documentary evidence and very seldom by the appearance or the demeanour of a witness before an inquiry. I am prepared to say that, on occasions, questions of that sort may arise, but a wise Minister, on seeing that, will send for his inspector and discuss the matter with him, though ultimately the view and the finding must be the Minister's. For the reasons I outlined on the last occasion, it would be, in my view, contrary to public practice for the Minister to publish the report of the inspector or the minute addressed to the Minister as a covering document with the report, or to allow any of these documents, in the vast majority of cases, to be published at all.

I have considerable diffidence in entering into this discussion between the Minister and Senator Kingsmill Moore. I rather feel I may be rushing in between the two of them, though not in regard to the points raised by either. I have even more diffidence, as a fairly ordinary person, in rushing into this discussion, when I listened to the strings of cases in which lords and knights and English judges were quoted and British Parliamentary Reports were being thrown across the House from one side to another. It is a far day that has been travelled by the Minister, when he comes in here to defend himself with all these British papers, to the day when everything British bar coal was to be burned. It is a far day when he comes in, mentioning the English Attorney-General, Queen Victoria and others; but however, be that as it may.

The fundamental principle of this amendment is not whether it has been the practice in the past to publish the reports or whether it has not. The principle involved is whether it is desirable to publish them in the future. Regardless of what practice has grown up here or in Britain or anywhere else, we can perfectly well decide for ourselves that it might be desirable to publish them in the future. It appears to me that that is the principle behind the amendment and the principle that we should be discussing. It seems to me that everything that has been said by the Minister and by Senator Kingsmill Moore points towards the suggestion made by Senator Hayes, and reiterated by me on the last occasion, that it is desirable to have something in the nature of an inward quiry or arbitration held by some person other than the servant of the Minister. If he wishes, the Minister could also have his own servant at that hearing, as an observer, but the person actually conducting it should not be an official of the Minister. As long as he is such an official, I can see objections to the publication of the report.

If the circumstances of inquiries are as reported, then it appears to me that some change must be made in the form of the report. Not so long ago, there was an inquiry in County Kildare by a servant of the Minister, at which a letter from the Department was produced. In that letter, the Department urged the local authority to go ahead and acquire sites and said that afterwards it would be quite sufficient if whoever was appointed as the town planning officer brought those sites into line with his plan. How could it possibly be consistent that an officer of the Department which ordered the local authority to go ahead with the acquisition should also be the person that was holding the inquiry as to whether it was desirable to take the sites or not? It does not conform to the ordinary principle of justice.

On a point of correction, I think my friend is mixing up the two ideas. One has to get an Order, if it is to be a compulsory scheme; after that, the sites are selected, and then an inquiry is held as to whether the sites are suitable or not.

I am afraid Senator O'Dea is incorrect, as he does not know the wording of the letter read out at the inquiry. First of all, I entirely agree that it was desirable to have an inquiry as to whether there should be a scheme or not. The actual letter that was read out on that occasion said that the Department was satisfied that the four sites were suitable, and that the council should go ahead. It was the same Department that was appointing the inspector. If that was a correct method, then it seems difficult to understand why that method of inquiry should not be changed, not perhaps on the lines suggested in Senator Sir John Keane's amendment. I do not quite agree with the wording of the amendment, but surely some way could be found of making a change.

The second thing that makes me wonder is a report which I read in the Evening Herald on Monday last. I do not know whether the report is correct or not, but it was published in connection with the inquiry that is being held at Dún Laoghaire. The report stated that the inspector had been asked by the local authority for a direction under a section of the Local Government Act of 1946, the very Bill that we are discussing here to-day. I do not know whether that was a misprint or not, but that is what actually appeared in the newspaper.

It is, quite obviously,

It was a misprint. When I saw "1946" I became rather interested in it, and when I read further through the report I saw the reference to Section 81 of the Local Government Act of 1941.

Senator Sweetman could not possibly see that.

I did see the reference to Section 81 of the Local Government Act of 1941, and when I came in to this House I took the trouble of reading Section 81 and then found that it could not be that section either. Therefore, if there was a misprint in the first reference there may possibly have been a second misprint in regard to Section 81. Of course, Senator Sweetman could not possibly have read the Act aright in order to inform himself before he speaks, but he did take the trouble on that occasion. The Minister assumed on another occasion that he did not do it either, and assumed wrongly. However, that is a minor detail. It merely shows that this whole question of inquiries is one that should be carefully considered as well as the manner in which they are going to be held, and the persons holding them. I am not making any suggestions against individuals.

I do not know the persons who act in these cases, but I am of opinion that if persons holding these inquiries were fully accustomed to the semi-judicial or quasi-judicial type of inquiry, then there could not be any misapprehension in my mind, or even in the mind of somebody who was less likely to find fault with the Minister than I am, that there was anything except a misprint in the newspaper report to which I have referred. As a matter of fact I think what must have been said was that it was Section 86 of the 1941 Act, but the report stated the "1946 Act" in the first instance, and in the subsequent reference mention was made to Section 81 of the 1941 Act.

What is happening at these inquiries goes to show that the present system of inquiry is not suitable. The question is whether we should not change the present system. These inquiries are being held under some Act passed in the reign of Queen Victoria. The Minister, I think, gave the exact number of years that Queen Victoria reigned. I cannot remember the number, but the question is whether the practice under that Act as adopted was correct or not. We are now enacting a new measure. I seriously suggest to the Minister that he should, without tying himself to the exact wording in Senator Sir John Keane's amendment, consider the whole method of holding local inquiries in the future.

Before this matter is disposed of, I should like to say that I do not feel any responsibility for the long drawn-out debate that has taken place on my amendment. The Minister quoted from some proceedings in the House of Lords and used the expression "reports of this kind." Only once did I venture to interrupt him. I then asked him if he could specify what the words "of this kind" meant. He testily said that he had been listening to irrelevancies from Senators for a long time and left it at that. I suggest that the Minister himself is quite a master of irrelevancy as he has proved on this occasion. He addressed his remarks very largely to the general question of local inquiries. This amendment of mine is not directed to the general question. It is directed to, and confined to, a special aspect of local inquiries. As Senator Sweetman has quite rightly said, because there has been a certain practice in the past is no reason why we, as part of the sovereign body, could not and should not change that practice if we see fit to do so.

I was specially stressing that when I was accused of irrelevancy. We have to regard these inquiries in relation to present trends in local government legislation. I am doing my best to confine my remarks to this amendment, but I must postulate this general principle. I challenge the Minister when he says that he is responsible to the Dáil for seeing that local services are adequately discharged. I say that there is no historical foundation for that. I suggest that his duty is one of co-operation with the local authority. The local authorities have very definite responsibilities. In their origin, they have almost sole responsibility in respect of local services. It is only the increasing encroachments by the central authority that have given the Minister any ground for claiming that responsibility. In my opinion, he should only claim that responsibility in the sense of a co-operative character. I think that Senator Duffy put the matter very clearly. He spoke of a particular service that might be in contemplation. Let us suppose that the county manager, on his own responsibility or by the direction of the Minister, said that there should be a fair green established in a town, and that fairs should no longer be held on the streets. The local authority for reasons that we can all understand—on account of the vested interests that have grown up from the holding of fairs on the public streets—objects. It contends that the holding of fairs on the streets has been a long established practice. In a case of that sort you have a definite conflict of opinion between the central authority and the local authority. The local authority is quite prepared to bear any expense consequent on the holding of an inquiry into the question as to whether the practice of holding fairs on the streets should or should not continue. The Minister, presumably, says that he has the power to direct them to incur the expense of providing a fair green for the town. In that situation there is naturally a conflict of opinion.

I do not think that the Minister ever made the statement that he had the power to compel a local authority to provide a fair green.

The example of the fair green was the one mentioned by Senator Duffy. In any event, in the case of any health service there surely will be legitimate differences of opinion between the views of the local authority and the views of the Minister. Under this Bill the Minister will have power to come along and hold the inquiry. The report of the inquiry will not be published, and the Minister has the right to say whose opinion shall prevail. The Minister may want something modern and I have no doubt he is advised by people with advanced ideas. He may want something that is expensive or costly and the local authority would probably say: "This present arrangement is quite adequate. It does not involve any expensive bricks or mortar but it will provide an adequate service." There is a conflict of opinion there. The local authority refuses, and quite rightly refuses, in my opinion, to strike a rate to implement what it considers to be unsatisfactory recommendations. Is not that a legitimate conflict between two bodies that ought to have a co-operative sense and why then should the Minister's view prevail? When the local authority maintains its point and the Minister says he is to have an inquiry, then in that case I maintain the report of the inquiry should be published.

The Minister drew a picture of inquiries into cash defaulters, and inquiry into malpractices of local officials and on land acquisition and a number of other matters totally irrelevant to the amendment. The amendment is to secure that where there is a conflict of authority in a matter where the local authority should have power and has discretion that the inquiry report should be published. I ask the Chair to put that amendment to the House.

Amendment put and declared negatived.

May I have my name recorded as dissenting?

The Senator will be recorded as dissenting.

SECTION 30.

Question proposed: "That Section 30 stand part of the Bill."

Are we now on the section generally?

Are there not several amendments down to delete the section?

These proposals, Senator, will be taken on the Question: "That the section stand part of the Bill." There is a note to that effect on the Order Paper.

I did not hope I would have to speak so soon again because there are five amendments down.

Senators, apparently, have changed their minds, having heard the Minister's speech.

This Senator was ready to get up to speak.

On the general principle involved in this section—the right of the Minister to impose his will on the local authority—I asked a number of questions on the Second Stage and to none of them have I received a reply. In viewing this question of the responsibilities of local authorities I think it is most important to have some measure of the increasing burden of our rates. I have asked the Minister twice if he could give us any figures of the local rates collected since the last published figures of 1942 and 1943. He has not replied. He claims to have a very efficient central authority imposed on the basis of a discredited and outworn local foundation, but I think the very efficient central authority should be in a position to give us, in considering an important matter of this kind, some measure of the burden imposed on the ratepayers later than the years 1942 and 1943.

I also think that his Department, which he claims to be in a high state of efficiency, should have given us a report of its proceedings later than the year 1944. I do hope the Minister will reply to this. I would not like to accuse him of being mute of malice but, so far, his attitude does rather support that suggestion. I also ask the Minister why he has departed from, and radically changed, the principles of this section as introduced in the original Bill. I have not got the exact wording but I am sure the House will agree that in the original Bill power was merely taken for the local authority to impose an additional rate. There were no penalties in the original Bill of inquiry and abolition as proposed in this section. What has happened since then to bring about such a drastic change in the attitude of the Minister towards this matter? I also ask the Minister on how many occasions in recent years has he been met by the refusal of the local authority to impose an adequate rate and, if he has been ever so confronted, to justify his reasons for such drastic action.

I am not concerned and not alarmed at the provisions of this section so far as the past is involved but I do feel that the Minister has been very adroit in the way he has introduced this section. I regard it as a spearhead of worse things to come, in fact as the spearhead of measures which will reveal his real intentions in regard to this section. I do not intend to do more than refer to a certain measure of which we have knowledge and which has proceeded to a certain stage in the Dáil. It gives the Minister power to impose heavy and specific burdens on the local authorities without their consent and without consulting them, burdens of an immense magnitude, without giving them any indication of what contributions shall come from central funds in regard to such burdens. That being so, I regard this section as an adroit move; in fact almost a piece of Parliamentary chicanery—bringing a section out of context to the real purpose for which it is supposed to deal. Under this section the Minister will have power to impose rates of undisclosed magnitude on the local authority. If the local authority protest in the only way in which, I think, they can legitimately protest—by refusing to strike a rate— the Minister comes along with his big stick and an inquiry is held. Then he is in the position of an absolute dictator and he may impose taxation without representation. That is what it means. What an attractive position for a person who is dictatorially minded or has a totalitarian mind, which, I feel, the Minister has. Instead of having to go to the Minister for Finance and say: "We want a sum of several millions for a very advanced health service," he simply goes to the local authority and orders them to supply whatever he may wish. If they fail to do so, he can impose the burden on them. Is there to be any inquiry into the resources of the local authority or their ability to pay? Is there to be any reference to the different points of view of the central as opposed to the local authority? Is there to be any means of determining whether what the local authority propose to do is adequate for the purpose? None whatever. The Minister is to be the sole judge and jury.

That is moving a very long way from the position when local government was established—when local councils took over the functions of the old grand juries, which were practically autonomous. Provided they kept within the law, they could maintain their services as they thought fit. If there was any control, it was of a minor and most lenient character.

This section, in its context in this measure and in relation to the past, looks fairly harmless but, in relation to the future and in regard to the increasing tendency to centralise, to streamline, to impose an easy form of uniformity throughout the country, with officials out of touch with country conditions and who have the academic approach, persons who say that they want the best and ask if we cannot afford the best—from that point of view it is not so harmless. I do not accept the view for one moment that the Minister is even legally the sole authority for the provision of local services. It may be that we have drifted into that position and that the Minister is trying now to consolidate his power. But local government is a matter of co-operation. This question of overriding authority comes about by the increasing use of the grant-in-aid. As grants were made by the central authority, conditions were attached to them and we have completely lost sight of the original purpose for which local representatives were appointed—to provide local services within certain categories. The wheel has almost turned a full revolution and the Minister is taking in this section complete and dictatorial powers—powers to make effective what he says is, as a Minister, his sole responsibility.

The Minister has not seen fit to reply to a matter I mentioned. I think that it is relevant to this section. I asked the Minister to consider whether it would not be possible to review fully the interlocking of all local and central services and to try not to-morrow but in the reforms that are promised—to arrive at a position in which the local authority would be made responsible for certain services for which they would not ask, and would not expect, any grant-in-aid. These services would be their own responsibility. They would be within their means and they would be allowed to deal with them unfettered by interference.

Other services would be placed in a category in which the central authority would be the sole authority and for which the local authority would be used merely as executive agents. That is the only way you will stop this continual friction between the central and the local authority. Under that system, you would get back in some measure to the old method under which the local authority had powers which it exercised at its-discretion. It was then an effective nursery for young people who were training for political life and it was not bound hand and foot by regulations and conditions.

Like Senator Sir John Keane, I agree that this section cannot be construed and discussed on its own merits. The whole purpose of the section, as I read it, is to implement and force local authorities to collect by local taxation moneys for schemes which are in reality State schemes and should be so dealt with. The Government or the Minister have determined that these schemes cannot be paid for by a central taxation because central taxation has reached its peak point and additions to it would be beyond the capacity of the people. The Minister dealt with this section at some length in introducing the Bill in this House, and he is reported in column 2079, onwards, in the Official Report. He, certainly, left the impression on anybody reading those columns that there could be no consideration for anything under this section except whether the rate struck was, in the Minister's opinion, sufficient to carry through the Minister's ideas. He tried in one phrase to deal with it—"The rate in the £ which appears to the Minister to be sufficient to meet the expenses which a local authority legally and properly incurred." That is not in the section at all. What is in the section is "maintaining at a reasonable standard the public services" and the word "reasonable" there must be construed with the previous sub-section in which the opinion of the Minister is to be the only thing that counts.

The opinion of the Minister is to be dominant in the whole procedure set out in this section. The Minister decides that the rate will be insufficient. So far as one can gather from column 208, he decides that because the rate "fails to meet the demands of their officers"—that is, the demands of the officers of the local authority. He says "If they have any justification"—he is referring to the local authority—"for failing to make a sufficient rate, for failing to meet the demands of their officers...." I fail to understand what that can mean, except that the Minister will, in such circumstances, send out his servant to hold a local inquiry as to whether the local authority is reasonable in its attitude or whether the Minister is reasonable. I cannot understand how any officer of the Minister's Department could possibly come back and say "I think the Minister is unreasonable" because that is what it is going to amount to.

What is going to happen is that in any case where the Minister thinks that the local authority are not spending enough money, without being aware of the local circumstances, he, by prejudging the issue, by appointing a servant of his own Department, is going to come along and going to strike for that local authority a supplementary rate. I am not so foolish as to suggest that there are not times when local authorities do not act in a reasonable manner, when they act in an unreasonable manner, nor am I so foolish as to suggest that there should not be the greatest co-operation between the local authority and the central Government but I do want to assert most positively that the means provided in this section are not going to get that co-operation or to achieve the necessary harmonious relations between local authorities and the central Government. As this section is framed, what will happen will be that the Minister will strike a supplementary rate, that he will be up against, and that he will have set against him, the people of the functional area concerned. If local services are not going to be properly carried out, if sufficient moneys are not going to be provided for local services, then the only way that co-operation can be maintained is to allow the people of the functional area to go through the mill, so to speak, so as to show them that the representatives whom they elected failed in their job. The method the Minister has adopted of arrogating to himself the functions of local authorities is never going to make for the co-operation that is so necessary. All that it will mean is that it will set against the Department of Local Government any reasonable member of any local authority.

There is in sub-section (9) of the section a particularly wide power given to the Minister. I do not know what type of difficulty the Minister envisages but I think that Senators are entitled to know. I think that Senators are entitled to get from the Minister on this section an answer to the question which was put to him on Second Reading and which he, shall I say, dodged in his reply. In the reply he skilfully missed this section and another section later on that will also be treated as being obnoxious. He proceeded to trot out some of the harmless sections and in trotting them out tried to suggest that the opposition to the Bill was not reasonable. The Minister, as I said before, tried in his defence of the section on Second Reading, to put the section on the basis of being merely designed to ensure that statutory services will be carried on and that legal obligations will be fulfilled, but he completely neglected to refer to the fact that the whole wording in the section deals not merely with statutory obligations as they exist at the moment, but with whatever the Department of Local Government may in future determine without regard to local circumstances. That is not the way to carry out local government. If that is the way to carry out local government, then it is a waste of time for any local authority to come together as such. If that is the way to carry out local government, you would get a much more streamlined efficiency by that method by not having town commissioners or councils at all.

We ought to make up our mind that the real way to get the co-operation necessary to make local government a success, is to place on the backs of those responsible for local government the responsibility for their actions. The Minister is not doing that in this section. He is taking the responsibility to himself and, so long as he proceeds in that way, he will never get a local authority to stand up to its responsibilities. He will never get anything except a most undesirable type on local authorities because anyone who has any respect for himself is not going to sit on a local authority if, at the whim of the Minister because of some argumentative point as to whether a certain thing is reasonable in the finances of the county or not, a servant of the Minister is going to be sent down to form a judgment as to whether the local authority or the Minister is right or wrong.

There can be only one answer from that servant and everybody on the local authority will realise that. If the Minister is going to retain the power of making a supplementary rate, it should be exercised only after there has been some type of independent inquiry at which the people of the functional area concerned will not feel before the thing is started that they are prejudiced beyond any possibility of doubt.

I remember once listening to a debate on the importance of retaining control by central authority as opposed to the importance of giving liberty to local authorities. When a lot of abstract views had been put forward and a lot of intricate matters had been debated, a small old man got up at the back of the hall and said: "I am 80 years old and have spent from the age of 20 to the age of 50 in the United States and chiefly in the more backward parts. In the small towns there, the government was very inefficient and it was also very corrupt. We stood it for some time, but eventually in all those towns there was a reaction and a rebellion of the ordinary people; and we turned out the people who were inefficient and corrupt and put in people who were efficient and not corrupt." That is the way the thing should come about—by the reaction of the people who see the faults of those who are misgoverning them.

It is more important that there should be, in the local centres in Ireland, a vivid and intense interest in local affairs than that those local affairs should be perfect. If the result of a certain amount of inefficiency, or even a certain amount of corruption, is to induce the local inhabitants to say that this must stop, to take it into their own hands to elect a better type, I think a little delay in the production of that result is well worth while. I am afraid of a superimposed efficiency from a central government and I am not certain that a central government may not make as many mistakes, though not the same mistakes, as may be made by those officiating in the local government.

It is perfectly true to say that the aims of local government in Dunfanaghy, in Clifden, in Skibbereen and in Wexford are substantially the same: it is not true to say that local conditions, local prejudices and local habits may not have an importance in modifying the methods of attaining those ends. I feel that we are inclined to sacrifice both local interests and local interest to the desire of producing the regular pattern. For that reason, if people will not strike a rate for good roads, I would like them to have bad roads for a bit, to find that the motorcars were not coming there, that the tourists were not coming, to let it be borne in upon them by their own personal experience that they were doing wrong and being inefficient. Roads are merely one example. If they do not provide proper housing, proper water supply and so on, do everything you can, by talking and writing, to bring home to them what they are losing; but I would very much prefer that the move should come from the people who are interested and that they should learn, by their own blisters, to make good shoes.

I must congratulate Senator Sir John Keane on being such an advocate of democracy, during the discussion on his own amendment and on this section of the Bill. He not only recognised our sovereign independence as a democratic State but he wants to establish every local authority as an independent republic. I was wondering at the time if he really meant to develop such a position, but Senator Kingsmill Moore absolutely proves it now. He said that the only method of curing the inefficiency and corruption of the local authority was to get the people to rebel. He actually used the phrase: "Rebellion of the local people." Do both Senators seriously think that we, as one of the Houses of the Oireachtas, should approve of such a state of affairs? One Senator suggested to us that we should have absolutely independent local authorities—he did mention collaboration or co-operation, but never mentioned co-ordination. Senator Kingsmill Moore followed him, pointing out that, by establishing them as local republics, they could do what they wished and when the people rebelled against them it would be time enough for any central authority to intervene. I think the House should not listen seriously to such arguments. While we are one of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Legislature, we must see that each and every local authority carries out the duties legally imposed upon it.

Senator Sir John Keane referred to the old Grand Juries and said they were completely autonomous so long as they kept within the law. I maintain that local authorities now are completely autonomous so long as they keep within the law. The argument is that the law imposed by the central authority is getting too intense. If our arguments were confined to that, we could listen to them, but the argument that there should be no co-ordination from headquarters, that we should have simply collaboration or co-operation and when things go wrong the cure is to have a local rebellion of the people, is surely something that we as a central authority could not accept. If one local authority does not discharge its duties and completely neglects its roads, that will affect the tourist traffic everywhere in the country. Likewise, if it does not carry out its public health regulations, it will be published in the foreign Press that everything in Ireland is dirty and insanitary. It will not be pointed out that there is only one recalcitrant local authority at fault. Therefore, no matter how much we may criticise the imposition on local authorities— and I have done it myself—we must insist that there be a co-ordinating central authority.

On the last day, I brought down upon my head coals of fire from Senators Baxter and Sweetman, when I spoke about the elected members of a local authority. These are the words they do not like to hear. Senator Sweetman in his speech to-day referred the whole time to the local authority as if the elected members constituted the local authority. I expect he referred to and was speaking on behalf of elected members of a local authority. There have been many changes in the administration of local services during the last 50 or 60 years, which many people at the present day do not properly appreciate. Some people talk about "local government". I think the words "local government" are out of date, misconceived and rather misleading. By "local government" some people understand a number of autonomous bodies, autonomous councils for each county, almost as independent and as sovereign as a republic.

But, of course, there has never been any such thing in this country as pure local government. In the old days, there was what was called the Local Government Board. The administration of local services in the different counties was in the hands of the Grand Jury, a number of selected persons who took upon themselves to administer the affairs of their counties, principally for their own benefit. We all know that the roads were always in the best condition in the neighbourhood of a residence of a member of the Grand Jury. Passing through the country we can see the high walls that surround the demesnes which were built probably out of county funds. I think that in some places there is a plaque that a bridge was erected by the bounty of a certain landlord out of the funds of the county. At all events, under the Grand Jury system of administration there was no such thing as pure local government. When that system came to an end under the Local Government Act of 1898, a number of councils were elected by the votes of the people on a restricted franchise. These councils had a brief but heroic existence. Their independence came to an end in the year 1923, under Section 12 of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923 (No. 9 of 1923). Local government was destroyed for the first time in Ireland by Section 12 of that Act. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that:—

"The Minister may at any time, if he thinks fit, order a local inquiry into the performance of its duties by any local authority."

Sub-section (2) provides:

"If and whenever

(a) the Minister is satisfied, after the holding of such a local inquiry as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section, that the duties of a local authority are not being duly and effectually discharged by such local authority, or

(b) a local authority wilfully neglects to comply with any lawful Order, direction or regulation of the Minister, or

(c) a local authority fails to comply with any judgment, order or decree of any court in Saorstát Eireann,

the Minister may, by Order, dissolve such local authority, and either order (under the powers hereinafter conferred on him) a new election of members of such local authority or transfer the property and the several powers and duties of such local authority to any body or persons or person he shall think fit."

Now that was the beginning of what I may call the definite centralisation in this country of local administration. Under that Act of 1923 the Minister took it into his own hands to dissolve local authorities. At that time local authorities had complete power to administer local services. There were no such persons at that time as county managers nor were there any reserved functions which members of a local authority only could perform. Section 12 of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1923 was repealed by the Local Government Act of 1925, and in its place Section 72 was enacted.

As a lawyer I feel that local government in this country must be regarded in its historical setting. You cannot take one isolated section in a Bill as a section has been taken here this evening and decry centralisation merely on that. It is necessary, in my opinion, to look into, and to consider, the history of the law relating to the matters set out in this section. We find that in 1923 the Minister took upon himself the power to dissolve local authorities and to appoint a person to carry out their functions. That was carried on in Section 72 of the Local Government Act of 1925 which repealed Section 12 of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1923. Section 72 of the Local Government Act of 1925 was repealed by the Local Government Act of 1941, and in its place Sections 44 to 45 of the Local Government Act of 1941 were enacted. Section 44 of the Local Government Act of 1941 provides in sub-section (1):—

"If and whenever

(a) the Minister, after holding a local inquiry into the performance by a local authority of their duties, is satisfied that such duties are not being duly and effectually performed, or...

the Minister may by Order remove from office the members of such local authority."

So that the Minister already has the power under the Act of 1941 to remove the members of a local authority who fail to make a sufficient rate. As a lawyer, I have considered the Local Government Acts which have been enacted in the past. I am interested in this Local Government Bill that is now before us, and as a Senator I went to the trouble of looking up the reports of the proceedings of Seanad Eireann relating to the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, the Local Government Act of 1925 and the Local Government Act of 1941. I found that Section 12 of the Local Government Act of 1923 was passed without any comment. There was not even a whisper. Section 72 of the Local Government Act of 1925 was also passed without comment, and Sections 44 to 55, which I may call the demolishing sections in the Local Government Act of 1941, were passed without comment. They were agreed to. Not even one Senator raised his voice against any of these sections in the 1923, 1925 and 1941 Acts.

Does the Senator mean that Senator Sir John Keane allowed them to go through without comment?

No Senator spoke, and I challenge any member of the House to look up the proceedings of the Seanad. This is the first occasion in this House on which the powers of the Minister to control the elected representatives of the people in the administration of local services have been discussed.

Did the Senator look up the Second Reading speeches on the measures that he has referred to?

No. I looked up the reports of the Committee Stage proceedings because, as we know, it is only in Committee that amendments can be discussed. On the Second Reading of Bills, Senators can talk as much as they like at random, and the more irrelevant their remarks are the more publicity they will get in the newspapers. You come down to bedrock when you go into Committee on a Bill. It is in Committee that amendments are moved and, as I have said, there were no amendments moved to any of these sections in this House. Therefore, I take it this House has accepted the principle of giving to the Minister for Local Government the power to dissolve local authorities after a local inquiry, and, in this case, to remove from office elected members. I have stated that there was never local government in the proper sense in this country, nor is there at the present time. In 1923 the local authorities consisted of elected members. Under the managerial system the local authority is a dumb body. It can do nothing for itself. If we read the definition of the Corporation of Cork under the Cork City Management Act of 1929, of the Dublin Corporation under the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930, of the Limerick Corporation under the Limerick City Management Act, 1934 or the Waterford Corporation under the Waterford City Management Act, 1939, what do we find? I have only got the Cork example here but they are the same in all cases. For instance the definition clause in Section 1 of the Limerick City Management Act, 1934, says that the Corporation "Means the Corporation, Aldermen and Burgesses of Limerick". In Cork, Dublin, Limerick and Waterford the corporation in each case is a dumb and helpless body.

Under Section 2, sub-section (7) of the Limerick City Management Act, 1934, it is stated as follows: "All and every of the powers, functions and duties of the corporation shall be exercised and performed for and on behalf of the corporation by the council or the manager (as the case may require) subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act." Fortunately in the case of the management of the Cities of Cork, Dublin, Limerick and Waterford, we have what is called the city council. In that case it is easy to distinguish between the functions of the council and the manager and also to distinguish the corporation from the city council. It has been said, over and over again, that the members are members of the corporation. They are no such thing. They are members of the city council.

Under the County Management Act, 1940, there is liable to be confusion inasmuch as the county council is not as clear cut as the corporation, but the county council under the County Management Act is also a dumb body. The operation of its functions, powers and duties is carried out by the elected members of the county council and these are, of course, limited to reserved functions. The remaining powers, functions and duties of a county council are performed by the county manager. Attack has been on the county management system and on the county managers. The management system originated, for the first time, under the Cork City Management Act, 1929. That was followed by the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930, and that was followed, in turn, by the Limerick City Management Act of 1934 and the Waterford City Management Act of 1939. Then we had the County Management Act of 1940. So that while all parties in this country have committed themselves to the county management system a number of people are continually in revolt against it.

They initiated it.

They are willing to wound but afraid to strike at the county management system. Therefore, the sooner people in this country realise that local government is being operated partly by managers and partly by elected members, the sooner will we have proper appreciation of what local government now means. There is no doubt at all that local government, as it was popularly believed to be in the past, does not exist. We have what is called central government of local services and that is not confined to this country.

Yesterday evening when I went home I found waiting for me a presentation copy from an English publishing firm of Hart's "Local Government and Administration"— the latest English book on Local Government Administration. As this Bill was before the House I was interested to read that book. There are a number of chapters in it on what I call the centralisation of local services in England and there I found that what is known as the Default Order has come to stay.

It has come to stay in respect of public health; it has come to stay in respect of housing; it has come to stay in respect of town planning and other matters. What does that mean? Under the English Local Government Act of 1929, we find exactly the same type of section as we find in this Bill— the same type of section as this section. Section 57, sub-section (3) of the English Local Government Act, 19 George V, Chapter 11, states:—

"Where it appears to the Minister that the council of any district wholly or partly within a county have made default in providing their district or any part thereof with a sewerage system or sewerage disposal works or an adequate supply of water, or in discharging any other function relating to public health which it is their duty to discharge the Minister may cause a local inquiry to be made into the matter"—just as in this case—"and (a) if after such inquiry the Minister is satisfied that there has been such default he may make an Order limiting a time for the discharge of the function by the council of the district and (b) if the function is not discharged by the time limited in the Order, the Minister may by Order transfer to the county council the function with respect to which default has been made for a definite period, or until he may otherwise direct and the Order may apply with such modifications and adaptations, if any, as appear necessary or expedient, any of the provisions of this Act relating to the transfer, superannuation and compensation of officers and any of the provisions of Section 63 of the Local Government Act, 1894."

This Section 30 of the present Bill almost follows that section word for word.

I am loath to interrupt the Senator but might I inquire from him through the Chair whether in fact that section also includes power for the Minister in England to strike a rate, because that is the whole net issue.

This does not do that either.

I think Senator Sweetman's remarks are somewhat irrelevant and out of place at the moment.

Of course, it is irrelevant because it is awkward.

I cannot see why Senator Sweetman should interrupt me in my speech, query me and take it upon himself to ask me questions. I am not thin-skinned but I like to develop my speech in my own way.

Section 5 of the Local Government Act, 1929, is exactly on the lines of the section we are now discussing, but in England they have gone further and, under Section 322 of the Public Health Act, 1936, 26th of George V, and 1st of Edward VIII, Chapter 49, the Minister may transfer the powers of the district council to the county council, that is, if such council is in default, but if the county council is in default the section provides as follows: "Or, in any other case may make an Order transferring to himself such of the functions of the body in default as may be so specified." In other words, under Section 322 of the English Public Health Act, 1936, the Minister has power to transfer to himself the functions of the local body. In this case the Minister is not transferring the functions to himself. He is appointing a commissioner to do the work of the elected members of the local authority.

While I said that the Minister has ample powers under Section 44 of the Local Government Act, 1941, to remove from office the elected members of a local authority who, after local inquiry, refuse to strike an adequate rate, this section, to my mind, is in ease of the elected members of local authorities. Under Section 44 of the Local Government Act, 1941, if the Minister is satisfied, after local inquiry, that the duties of the local authority are not being duly and effectively carried out he has no option but to remove these elected members from office forthwith. Under this Bill he gives them time to consider their position.

Just as in the English Act of 1929, the local authority is required to carry it out within a time to be limited by the Minister. Here, the elected members have time to think things over and that is in ease of those members. Therefore, I have reached the conclusion that this section is nothing new in local government legislation. It is, no doubt, making matters more definite and more express and, in a sense, it may be warning the elected members of local authorities, whose function is to make an adequate rate, that if they do not carry out their duties in a proper way, they may be removed from office. The section was first introduced as a machinery section to enable an additional rate to be made. For some reason or other, the Minister introduced in the Dáil an amendment which had the effect of making the section appear to confer upon him additional or new powers. The section does not do any such thing. He has those powers already. But it does give an opportunity to the elected members of local authorities to consider their position before being removed from office under the section. For those reasons, I think that the section, while admittedly drastic, is nothing out of the common. It is remarkable that, after 23 years, this is the first occasion in this House in which the power of the Minister to dissolve a local authority after a local inquiry and after being satisfied that the local authority has not carried out its duty, has been challenged.

Senator Ryan's speeches and historical summaries are always interesting and sometimes illuminating. I do not know that he was quite so illuminating on this occasion. Perhaps I was much more dense than usual. I listened carefully and I heard his conclusion, that there was nothing new in this section. How he reached that conclusion was not at all clear to me. It may be that he reached the conclusion that there was nothing fundamentally different in the section from what had been done since this State was established. That would not show that there was nothing new in it, except on the principle that "there is nothing new under the sun". I suggest to Senator Ryan that he will not derive much benefit by reading the debates of the Seanad in 1923. Many things were done in this House and outside it in 1923, which, I hope, will never be done again in this country.

The suggestion or conception that this House is committed by what the Seanad of 1923 did will not carry very much weight. I do not remember what occurred in 1923 in this connection, but I do not think that I was opposed, nor am I now opposed, to the Minister having power in certain circumstances to dissolve the local authority. There are certain circumstances when that is justifiable, but I am opposed to the Minister having power to dissolve a local authority and to keep it out of office for three years, which is the present law and which is the proposal in the section we are now discussing.

Would the Senator be good enough to point out the proviso in this section which states that the Minister shall keep a local authority out of office for three years?

I did not say that there was such a provision. What I said was that the section gave the Minister power to do so if he thought fit. There is a provision in the 1941 Act which applies to this section in which the Minister is given that power. We are not now dealing with the present Minister. The present Minister has many qualities, qualifications and ideas which are good, bad or indifferent, according to one's point of view. We are dealing with the person who will happen to be Minister for Local Government while this Bill is being operated. Whatever Minister is in power while this Bill is law can avoid having a new election in the case of an abolished authority for a period not exceeding three years. Where I differ fundamentally from the attitude of the present Government is in refusing to believe that the main object in dissolving a local authority is simply to get it to do what you want. The main object is, ultimately, to create good government in the local area and a sense of responsibility on the part of the people who are to elect the particular body.

Senator O'Donovan showed in his brief speech that he had no conception of what we were discussing at all. He said that what we wanted was a number of independent republics. What we want is full responsibility and a reasonable amount of independence in the exercise of the functions given to the local bodies. It was never suggested that their power should be more than a limited power. We want young men and young women of a good type to take part in local affairs, but you will not get them if you have too easy abolition of elected bodies and if the period that elapses between abolition and the time of election is two or three years. I am strongly of opinion that, when a local authority is dissolved, whether for the reasons specifically stated in this section or other reasons under other Acts, there should be an independent report which the electors could see and the period of time before the election should not be longer than 12 months. My reason for that is that I believe the electors should deal with the elected members of the local body concerned.

I am sorry that the Government have decided to take power to strike a rate. We know the Bill will be passed. I believe that it would have been very much better if they had taken less drastic power—power to refer the question back to the local electors within 12 months. I should have the minimum of exception to the powers taken in this section if I were quite certain that the local electors, with the facts before them, would have an opportunity of expressing their opinion within 12 months, before the next rate would fall to be struck. It may be said that ratepayers do not like paying rates and would not support an increased rate. I am by no means convinced that that is the case. There is a good deal of local pride and, if an adequate report were placed before them, I believe that they would act properly. Although we, in Dublin, grouse when we see 2/6 added to the rates, if it were put to the electors that the efficient maintenance of our streets depended on the 2/6, would you not get a vote in favour of it? These are the main reasons why I am opposed to this section. I expressed my views on Second Stage and should not have spoken again but for the speeches of Senator O'Donovan and Senator Ryan.

Senator Ryan has traced the history of local government very fully and has shown us how limited were the powers of local authorities at all times. He has particularly shown us that this section does not put the local authority in any worse position than before the Bill was introduced. In fact it has improved the position of local authorities, as I mentioned on the last occasion the Bill was before the House. Under the Act of 1941, as Senator Ryan has pointed out, the Minister may dissolve a local authority without any trouble other than holding an inquiry and making his Order. Under this section if he thinks that the rate struck is likely to be inadequate he can send down his inspector to hold an inquiry. A great deal has been said about sending down the inspector and the inspector has been referred to as the servant of the Minister. A Local Government Department inspector is not a servant of the Minister; he is the servant of the Department, no matter who the Minister may be in that Department. As some of them will tell you, the Minister is only the Minister. The inspector is under the Department and he is the man who is familiar with local government law. He is familiar with the working of the various local authorities in the country.

There is nobody more suited to hold an inquiry of this particular nature in any event than a man who knows what are the services that have to be met by each local authority in the country or in a particular county in respect of which he is making an inquiry. He is the best man to discover evidence to show what the services are that must be met. The services are defined here as "maintaining at a reasonable standard the public services for the maintenance of which the rating authority is responsible."

It has been alleged that the county manager may order different things to be done. That I think is not correct. It is correct to say that the Minister can order hospitals to be erected and sewerage schemes or schemes of that nature to be carried out. If they are not carried out he can remove the local authority but it is a very unusual thing to have a service like that forced on the people against their will. It is generally they themselves who ascertain that these services are required. Having ascertained that, they prepare a scheme and they get the permission of the Minister to carry out the scheme. Then having got the scheme, it naturally becomes an obligation on them to maintain it. They must strike the rate necessary for that purpose. The inspector inquires what are the services that must be maintained at a reasonable rate. He hears first of all the evidence of doctors, engineers and other people and he himself makes up his calculation. The calculation is made up in the presence of the public and generally it is reported in the local Press. The councillors themselves are present at the inquiry and if it is shown to them that they made a mistake at the council meeting, that they did not understand all the requirements that had to be fulfilled, that they did not understand that if they did not strike a sufficient rate this year according to the ordinary law they would have to make up the deficit the following year and would therefore have to strike an increased rate, they probably would say: "Well, we agree now, we did not strike a sufficient rate; having heard all the evidence we shall now strike a sufficient rate." There would then be no dissolution. That is different from what occurred in Roscommon. An inquiry was held and the county council was dissolved. They had not the advantage of this particular section then because, if so, after the inquiry they would have been requested to strike a sufficient rate and only in the event of their refusal to do so would there be a dissolution. This section, therefore, is an improvement and I do not see why there should be such a strong objection to it.

At one time I myself was inclined to read into it a meaning which it does not contain. Now, I have come to the conclusion that it is an improvement on the old position. It is not introduced to prejudice the position of local authorities. It has been introduced if anything in the interests of local authorities.

I confess that I was amazed to hear Senator Ryan make the categorical statement that there was no such thing as local government or that there was never such a thing as local government. If he said that at the present time there is no such thing as local government, I could quite agree with him. If Senator Ryan had taken the trouble to make a little research and studied the Parliamentary Reports of the years 1930 and 1931, he would find that a very strong protest was made in the Dáil at the first infringement made on the rights of local authorities, when matters arising out of the Act of 1926 came before the Dáil in 1931. I was a member of a local body, a rural district council in 1923 and I went into the county council in 1925. At that time, and for quite a number of years, councillors had plenary powers. I admit they were elected on a restricted vote. They were elected by the votes of people who were paying towards the services which the council was administering. No person who was not a ratepayer had a right to vote in these elections. The local government franchise was extended afterwards, but the only power taken from the councillors was the power to make certain appointments. At the annual estimates meeting, the council went into the estimates put up by the secretary and they made suggestions for readjustments of the figures. Very often some councillors made suggestions for a drastic reduction in the estimates. Whenever the secretary considered that these suggestions were impossible, he would ask the councillor who made them to set out what particular services he would cut in the estimates.

I would like to ask the Senator if the rural district council of which he was a member was not abolished in 1925?

Mr. Ruane

I think I am entitled to answer Senator Ryan that there was such a thing as local government. This section is one of the most objectionable in the Bill. I am in full agreement with the argument put forward last week and to-day for the publication of the reports of inquiries. Where a question arises as to the amount of a rate levied by a local authority and where the Minister cannot agree with the rate, the members of the local authority should have an opportunity of placing their views before the general public. I admit that that is done at the inquiry, but if the body is dissolved after the inquiry, without any reasons being given and without the viewpoints of the Minister and the local authority being put forward side by side, then the ratepayers involved will not have the same respect for that particular finding as they would have otherwise.

However, I am more concerned with the section which provides for the contingency of a double rate. As many Senators know, rates are paid usually in two moieties; the first is collected in September and the second is invariably paid on the last day of the financial period, at the end of March. The people who pay the two together do so because it is the most convenient way. The rate collectors find it very difficult to close the warrant and in many cases they can do so only with the accommodation that the banks afford them, and by doing so they get the only remuneration they can get for their services, the poundage which depends on completion of the warrant. If the rate collector has to close two warrants within one year, there will be confusion. I would like the Minister to agree to the particular amendment here or consider introducing some adjustment on the Report Stage, that would save local authorities the trouble which certainly would arise if a second levy had to be made within the one financial year.

It can also lead to loose estimating, as the manager, in making up his estimate at the beginning of a year and having gone into matters carefully and provided for the various services, may, if faced with a barrage for a reduction by the local authority, adopt the line of least resistance and agree to a recommendation for reduction, knowing full well that, by the time the amount of money is exhausted, he will have power to introduce a second estimate.

He has not power.

Mr. Ruane

That should not be allowed and if that part of the section were eliminated I would be satisfied. If it is not eliminated and if it ever arises that two rates have to be collected by a local authority in one year, the experience gained by the Minister as a result will necessitate an amendment being brought in at some future period to abolish the power given to a manager to provide for a second rate.

Some time ago, a circular was addressed to Senators pointing out the powers and functions of local bodies. One of those powers was that of examining and revising the estimates. I hold that that power entitles them to increase or reduce an estimate, in accordance with their local knowledge. If they reduce the estimate, and the Minister does not agree and holds a local inquiry, I hold that the evidence should be published——

The House has decided against that.

Mr. Ruane

——so that the local representatives responsible for reducing the estimate, as they were entitled to do, would have an opportunity of justifying themselves before the public which elected them. I trust the section will be adjusted in a manner that will obviate a double rate, so that local authorities and the people may be saved trouble in the future that it would occasion.

I had not the advantage of hearing the full discussion and my remarks are confined to a point mentioned by Senator Douglas. He said the best men would not go forward for election if there were not stability in the tenure of office. It so happened that, in my county, the council was abolished and remained so abolished for three years, until 1943. In 1943, instead of an inferior class of candidate coming forward, a superior class came forward, with the result that we now have a new and very virile council, operating with new ideas—possibly the best council we ever had in Clare. That disposes of the argument that persons will not go forward unless they are sure of the tenure of office. Most of the old councillors in Clare retired gracefully. They had been 20 or 25 years in office and had given of their best and they were worn out at the time the council was abolished. As a result of the abolition and of the rest in between, we have now in Clare one of the best councils we ever had.

As regards the double rate mentioned by Senator Ruane, I have some little experience of estimates and the making of rates and I do not think that would work at all. The estimate has to be ready in January and it would be impossible for the clerical staffs to get out a second set of rate books within the one year, so that must be eliminated also. Senator Ruane is very lucky in his area if the first moiety is collected only in September and the second in March.

Down our way they collect much earlier than that. There will always be a few laggards, but 75 per cent. of the rates will be collected by February, and it is only dribs and drabs that will be coming along in the month of March. I think that was a very poor argument to put forward. It was also a very poor argument to say that, if a council is afraid it will be abolished, you will not get the best men to come forward. You will always get the best men to come forward because they will know that they will not be abolished.

The section under discussion provides an opportunity for a review of much larger issues than the one included in the section. The section provides that in a certain specified case, that is to say where an insufficient rate is levied, the Minister may take certain action, and if the local authority, subsequent to the report, does not act in accordance with the findings of the inquiry, then it may be abolished. Now that is a very limited sort of question, but the discussion on this section has ranged over the whole question of inquiries. The Minister himself started the ball rolling by dealing with the subject of inquiries generally, and not with this particular one. Like my friend, Senator Ryan, I would perhaps have been silent regarding this section and would have made no observations at all on it had the suggestion contained in the amendment moved by Senator Sir John Keane been adopted: that is to say, had the Minister agreed to issue the findings of the inquiry in the form of a report.

I could imagine objections being raised by the Minister to the publication of the findings of an inquiry of a different type, one into which all sorts of personal considerations might enter, but in this case, presumably, the considerations would be whether or not a sufficient rate had been struck. Just as an auditor would be expected to give his reasons for certain decisions, so this case is eminently one in which the reasons which influenced the Minister should be given. It is not easy to conceive why they should not, and why such reasons should not be published. In fact, one would think that their publication would tend to secure the co-operation of the people generally.

Now, there is a trend in local government legislation—in fact one might say in all legislation—which, I think, it is important for us to consider. The trend, as I have observed it, is to make the local authorities bear a very much larger share of the burden than formerly. That is a very definite trend, that all expenses that can be saved for the central authority are saved and that the corresponding burdens are shifted on to the shoulders of the local authorities. Now, from the purely political standpoint that has certain advantages because the question of income-tax and other taxes enter into the funds provided by the central authority. If the Party in power can say that they have cut down these expenses it will be said that they have done great things, but it is forgotten, or maybe forgotten, that in the cutting down of these expenses the expenditure of local authorities has been raised proportionately. That is a serious aspect of the matter.

Before getting down to one or two specific examples, I would like to say something regarding one or two of the statements that were made by Senator S. O'Donovan. He used the word "rebellion" in, I think, a slightly unfair sense. What was the "rebellion" contemplated by Senator Douglas? It was rebellion on the part of the local people against certain objectionable types of local representatives, rebellion which, in itself, would tend to support the central authority in the best possible way. From what was said it would appear that Senator Douglas advocated the setting up of some kind of an autonomous body.

Not Senator Douglas.

There was no such suggestion at all. Senator O'Donovan also used a very good word —the word co-ordination. I fully agree with him as to the desirability of securing the highest possible degree of co-ordination between the central authority and the local authorities. That co-ordination may be exemplified in various ways. You may have the case, to which objection is taken, of a local authority being ordered to do certain things, and that if it fails to do them then certain consequences will follow; or you may have the other form, which is the better form in every way, of tactful officials going around and showing local authorities where they are going off the line and making helpful suggestions to them. That is co-ordination in the true sense. It has everything to recommend it, and I only hope that that form of co-ordination will be encouraged in every possible way. If that position comes about, then I think the system of local government will be much easier than before.

Local government officials and the local government Minister himself may go wrong, particularly if they lose touch with the people. After all, the vast majority of the people have throughout the ages formed a certain opinion and, generally speaking, that opinion has been fairly sound. If, however, you have officials who are not directly in touch with the people, who do not mix amongst them, they may get certain magnificent ideas into their minds, and, without further consideration, may say that they must get these adopted. Then they will take care by utilising the means at their disposal to see that such ideas are put into operation.

I want to quote the case of the boards of health which were set up some years ago. The local district councils and the boards of guardians, with all their defects, were abolished, but in very recent times we have had a contrary movement. That movement has been acknowledged officially in the Local Government Act, under which provision is made for the setting up of parish councils. These represent the opposite idea. In the one case you have centralisation, if you like, gone mad, and, on the other hand, you may have parochialism gone mad. All that shows that there is a modern belief to the effect that it is wrong to abolish local initiative, and that it is absolutely necessary to have it.

The question that we are discussing is a psychological question: what is the best way to remove the corruption, let us say, that exists, or that is supposed to exist. We can remove it by the whip from Dublin. We can say that if any objectionable people appear on the public stage that we will take such action that they will disappear forever; or there is the other method, that the onus is put on the people who were misguided enough to put in the wrong types of people to correct the wrongs that they have done. It is only when they begin to suffer, as a result of these wrongs, that the idea will strike them that they have the remedy in their own hands, so that it is really a matter of a difference of opinion as to which is the better way of handling the question. Personally, I think that the second of the two ways I have mentioned will ultimately be found to be the sounder one, because we can have apparent sanctity, if you like, throughout our public services, a whited sepulchre, in fact, whereas, in fact, there is not any sound public opinion or public morality, if you like, to support that. While it may appear that everything is sound, it really is not so.

Let me quote this example. Within the past week, down in the County Tipperary, we have had an animated discussion regarding the question of hospitals. It was proposed that hospitals that have been in existence, small district hospitals, for some time should go out of existence. Naturally, the people there took very strong exception to that.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

I have not a great deal more to say about this particular section but I might perhaps be allowed to complete my remarks that were interrupted at the interval. I suggested that the Local Government Board with all the talents at its disposal and all its ability may make mistakes and in that way prove that these people are just human beings. I mention the fact that in my own locality there is uneasiness at the moment regarding a scheme for the abolition of certain district hospitals. People associated with the area concerned who will be affected by this scheme are very much alarmed and some of them have approached me on the subject. The scheme as a whole is a large scheme and for the purpose of getting some information on the matter I took advantage of a chance meeting with an official who is pretty well informed regarding the manner in which these county management schemes work. I said to him: "I presume this scheme is a scheme of the county manager" and he replied: "Oh, no, it is simply a scheme of the Local Government Department put up to the county council through the county manager".

That is the type of thing that I think is leading to very considerable uneasiness and is the cause of so much criticism. If this were a scheme put up locally——

I suggest, with all respect, that this has nothing to do with the section and practically nothing to do with any other part of the Bill.

I am afraid, Senator O'Reilly, it is a bit off the section.

Mr. O'Reilly

I suggested that at the beginning we had all got off the section a lot. The question of an inquiry was limited under the section to an inquiry regarding an insufficient rate but the whole discussion later seemed to roam over the subject of inquiries in general. That, in turn, led to a discussion regarding the policy of the Local Government Department and its methods generally of dealing with local bodies. However, I am practically finished regarding that point and if I would be allowed to make one other remark of the same kind it would complete what I have to say regarding this particular example. I am just quoting it to show that even if the Department of Local Government sends down an inspector and he reports back to the Minister, that inspector may be altogether wrong. It is upon his report apparently that the Minister will act and for that reason I thought I would give an example of where inspectors have gone wrong.

Some years ago, there was a suggestion that a county hospital be put in a very small town with about 2,000 population. There was a very large town in the same county, Clonmel, with about 10,000 population. I discussed the matter with a very prominent medical man here in Dublin who is, I think, connected with the Hospitals Commission and he said that this was a dreadful mistake to make. There was no question about it. That mistake was made practically by command of the Department of Local Government. That is a definite example of where mistakes have been made and they can be made in the future. That is all the more reason why people should be given an opportunity of considering the inspector's report, and if that report is sound and reasonable, I think it will be the best possible means of securing the support of the people for the schemes advocated by the Minister himself. Since this section provides for the abolition of a local authority, I submit that I am not too far off the line in quoting this example. Again, there is the trend of local government, generally, rather than in any particular case. I think that we are heading in the wrong direction. We are steam-rolling public opinion out of existence and creating amongst the people an attitude of indifference as to what happens. One person leaves responsibility to another. I know persons who are very wealthy and who would not even go to the trouble of voting, the reason given being that the Party for whom they voted might be ascertained. They do not regard the Ballot Act as sufficiently secret. That shows what may happen as a result of this trend in local government. I notice that Senator Quirke is again anxious to interrupt——

I was anxious to know what the Senator was talking about. He certainly does not know himself.

Mr. O'Reilly

The Senator was not here when I was speaking.

I was on the Tipperary County Council when the matters to which he referred were discussed. The Senator pretends to know something about them but he knows nothing about them.

This seems to be a private Clonmel affair.

Senator Sir John Keane has been waiting somewhat impatiently for answers to one or two questions which he put to me on the Second Stage and which, in his view, appear to be relevant to this debate. I think that some of them would have been more relevant to a discussion on the Estimate for Local Government and Public Health. To the extent to which I have the information at my disposal, I shall satisfy his avidity for knowledge by giving him some facts regarding the position of the local authorities in respect of rates. In 1933, the total rate collected by local authorities amounted to £4,278,000. In 1938, it amounted to £5,850,000; in 1944, to £7,936,000. There has, naturally, been a considerable increase in the rates collected in 1944 as compared with those collected in 1933 and those collected for 1938 as compared with the amount for the earlier year. I do not propose, and I do not think the Seanad would expect me, to explain in great detail the causes which gave rise to that increase. A very large part of the increase which took place over the period 1933-38 can be ascribed to two heads. The first of these is the housing programme which was undertaken by the local authorities and which has left them the owners of a very valuable property. One cannot acquire property without paying for it, and a local authority which acquires property in the shape of housing does not pay for it immediately. The money is raised by borrowing and the charges on the borrowed moneys have to be defrayed out of the rate revenue. Naturally, the acquisition of property by the local authorities in these circumstances reflects itself in an increase in the rates. Another factor responsible for some part of this increase is the provision of public health schemes—water supply and sewerage schemes—in a considerable number of areas. I might go further and say that another cause has been the improvement in the general public health services of the community.

However, the increase in the rates, particularly over the period from 1938 to 1944, may justify a little further examination. I have already pointed out that, in 1938, the rate collection amounted to £5,850,000. In 1944, the amount collected in rates was £7,936,000 —a very considerable increase, amounting to £2,185,000. In that connection, there is one factor of very great importance to which we must have regard. In 1938, the total estimated national income was £154,000,000. The amount collected in rates, as I have already explained, amounted to £5,850,000 and represented 3.7 per cent of the national income. In 1944, when the rate for the year amounted to £7,600,000, the total national income was £252,000,000, so that the rates represented about 3 per cent.

Is that not a strong case for giving the national teachers more money out of the national income?

There has been a great deal of irrelevance in this debate but I am surprised at a former Ceann Comhairle making so disorderly an interruption.

Pay the national teachers more out of the increased national income.

If we are to enter into a discussion of the salaries of the national teachers——

Not to-night—merely by way of interruption.

By way of response to Senator Hayes' litany, I should point out that the national teachers were offered a very considerable increase.

This is entirely irrelevant.

The increase represents much more than the .7 increase in the rates.

The fact of the matter is that, while we have been listening to these jeremiads all the afternoon about the excessive burdens that were being thrust by the central authority upon the ratepayers, the amount collected in rates is a smaller fraction of the money value of national income than it was in the year 1938. That indicates that the local authorities and the local communities are not being asked to bear an undue share of the cost of the public services. I do not want to go into the considerations which justify the central authority at any time asking a local community to bear a share of the cost of the services which are provided for them. If it were not for the example which we have had in the speech by Senator O'Reilly, you, A Chathaoirligh, would probably rule me out if I were to proceed to expatiate on that matter.

I come to the next question put to me by Senator Sir John Keane as to what public bodies had been dissolved in recent years because they had refused to discharge the duties which are envisaged, if I might say so, in Section 30 of this Bill.

This section, as I might remind the Senator, provides that in certain circumstances where a rating authority refuses to provide for the maintenance at a reasonable standard of the public services for which it is responsible, certain things may happen. The refusal of local authorities to make proper provision for maintaining these public services has not been so unusual as Senator Sir John Keane would appear to think. It has not, I think, been a very frequent occurrence but over a period of eight years ten local authorities have had to be dissolved for reasons which closely approximate to those which are contemplated by Section 30. Tipperary County Council was dissolved on 29-2-34 for failing to maintain a full and satisfactory rate collection and thereby failing to provide the necessary finances to maintain the public services.

Was that North Riding or South Riding?

South Riding. Kilkenny County Council was dissolved in June, 1934, for the same reason, Leix County Council in 1934, and Waterford County Council in 1934 for the same reason, Westmeath County Council, in 1935, for the same reason. Then, in September, 1941, the Dublin County Council was dissolved, again for failing, amongst other things, to make a satisfactory rate collection and for allowing the finances of the county to get into a very involved state. Clare County Council was dissolved on the 22/4/42 because of a backward rate collection and a consequential excessive overdraft, very profitable, no doubt, to the bank but very unprofitable and expensive to the ratepayers. Roscommon County Council was dissolved on the 2nd June, 1944, for failure to strike an adequate rate for roads; Kerry County Council was dissolved on 6th May, 1945, for the same reason. Kilkenny Corporation was dissolved on the 20th July, 1942, for making an inadequate provision in its estimates and for other reasons. It is quite clear, therefore, that there is reasonable justification for providing against the contingency that a public authority may deliberately and wilfully refuse to provide the necessary revenues for maintaining the public services.

Other points about which Senator Sir John Keane seemed to be anxious to get some information were the delay in the publication of the reports of the Department of Local Government and the delay in publishing the annual returns of local taxation. Well, of course, I suppose most of the world around us pursued its normal course for the last six or seven years and everything went smoothly and was done in due order. Unfortunately, that was not the case in this country. We had to improvise and find a staff from other Departments, to man and operate a considerable number of services, abnormal services of a type that we were not accustomed to here, for the whole period from September, 1939, until quite recently. As I have indicated, these services which we had to improvise and establish, if you like somewhat improvidently and certainly very hastily, had to be manned from existing Departments. The Department of Local Government and Public Health contributed in a very large measure to man these new Departments and, consequently, attention to matters which were not regarded as being immediately and urgently essential had to be deferred.

I am not suggesting that it is not of very great importance that the reports of any Government Department should be issued as promptly as possible. If some years ago, when times were normal, the reports of the Department of Local Government or the annual taxation returns were published very belatedly, I should have been a very strong critic of the Department responsible. I am also certain that if that delay was occasioned by abnormal causes, was occasioned by the fact that the Government of the State had to devote its first attention and consideration to the problem of maintaining the independence and the peace of this State, and that for the purpose of enabling that to be done any Minister or any Department had to forego the use of the accustomed staff on work such as printing and publishing a report, I should have recognised that that was a reasonable thing and I am sure that, being aware of the circumstances and recognising that in my own mind, I should not have made it a subject of public criticism.

I think I have dealt with all these questions which Senator Sir John Keane addressed to me on the occasion of the Second Reading and with which, were it not that he in conjunction with other members of the House had decided that instead of allowing me to pursue my speech in winding up the debate on the Second Reading, they would proceed to other business at 9.30, I would have been able to deal earlier.

On a point of order, that is not correct. There was nothing to prevent the Minister from carrying on the debate when the House met again.

Except this, that the Minister has a great deal more to occupy his mind than talk.

He does not show that.

Well, that was, apparently, the attitude that Senators adopted in relation to this Bill. I shall come to Senator Sweetman in a moment, so I shall ask him to be a little patient with me while I go on. I was saying that I should have dealt with these matters, and I am sure Senator Sir John Keane must have realised that I would have been only too glad to deal with them, if time had permitted, at the conclusion of the debate on the Second Reading. Time did not permit and the Senator has been very querulous about the fact that he did not get answers. I am glad that I have been able to satisfy him, I hope, at last.

To come to Senator Sweetman, the Senator is a very experienced and able advocate. I am perfectly certain that, if the Senator had a good case, he would base it on the truth and the whole truth and not on a half-truth. He opened his speech by quoting some remark I made on the Second Stage of this Bill, and he quoted a sentence out of its context. He said that I had said that what would arise here would be that, if the local authority failed to meet the demands of its officers, it would be dissolved. Now, I will recall to the House precisely what I did say. I said this:—

"At that local inquiry—"

the local inquiry contemplated here by Section 30—

"the local authority will be represented. If they have any justification for failing to make a sufficient rate, for failing to meet the demands of their officers—"

that is the sort of thing which might arise—

"if they urge that these officers themselves had not been functioning efficiently, that they—"

that is to say, the members of the local authority—

"are not satisfied with the services provided by their servants—"

that is, the officers who are making the demands—

"in return for the revenues made available—these issues can all be thrashed out at that local inquiry and the Minister will then be in a position to say whether or not the rate, as determined by the local authority, would be sufficient if the authority's services were economically and efficiently administered."

The point I was making there was that this inquiry may not only put the local authority on proof but may also put the servants of the local authority —the manager, as Senator Ryan has pointed out, is part of the local authority under the Act—also on proof. The manager may have to prove that he is not making an excessive demand. Therefore, so far from this inquiry being designed to coerce the local authority to meet the demands of its manager, the inquiry contemplated here may just as readily and as easily put the onus on the manager and the other officers of the local authority to satisfy the public and the Minister that their demands are not excessive. When that is realised, one realises the force of what Senator Ryan has endeavoured to impress on the Seanad—that this section, so far from imposing an onerous obligation on the local authorities, is really an easement of the present position.

Since Senator Ryan has mentioned it, perhaps I may refer to the circumstances under which this section was drastically amended. In the Bill as originally introduced, the section contained only the proviso that the local authority might have power to strike a supplementary rate and that the Minister might, if necessary, require it to strike a supplementary rate. The local authority already had that power under an Emergency Powers Order and it was originally proposed merely to continue the position which had been created by that Emergency Powers Order and to enact it in permanent form. When the section came before the Dáil, objection was taken— and, in my view, having considered the matter, properly taken—to the fact that, as originally drafted, it might have led to the thing which Senator Ruane seemed to visualise, to lax estimation on the part of the county manager or the local authority.

As there would be no limitation as to the circumstances in which a supplementary rate might be struck, it might lead to unsatisfactory budgeting, to the development of an unsatisfactory financial practice on the part of the local authority, that is to say, that they would fail, in the first instance, to make adequate provision to cover their estimated expenditure, that they would come along towards the end of the year, when funds began to run short, and strike a new rate and continue in that way striking further rates and living more or less from hand to mouth until the financial year had concluded.

The Minister for Local Government, being a reasonable man and ready to listen to a good case when it is made, immediately saw the force of that. On going into it again, to see how the power which we had intended to confer on the local authority might be reserved for the purpose which we had in view when the section was being drafted, we provided this machinery whereby the supplementary rate could only be struck after the Minister had been satisfied, as a result of due investigation, that it was necessary to strike that rate, if the local authority was to meet its obligations. Now, those obligations are two-fold. It has the obligation, first of all, of maintaining the public services for which it is responsible at a reasonable standard and it has, secondly, the obligation of providing subsidiary or ancillary bodies with the funds necessary to enable them to function. Senator O'Reilly will appreciate what I mean. For instance, if the Tipperary County Council were to refuse, as it might happen, to strike the rate necessary to provide the finances for the Vocational Education Committee, naturally that committee could not function and a very undesirable state of affairs would be brought about. If a local authority takes up that recalcitrant attitude in relation to a statute of the Oireachtas, by refusing to strike such a rate for vocational education when it is bound to do so under the statutes, I cannot see how there can be any contention that we are doing anything wrong providing that the Minister, after having ascertained the position by public local inquiry and bringing out the facts in the public view, should then give to the rebellious local authority—we have been hearing a lot about rebellions in the course of this debate—an opportunity to amend its way of life and continue to render useful public service. That is what is intended by Section 1 of the Bill. I hope that that exposition of the section will be borne in mind by some of those Senators who have criticised this section in this way.

I am certain that, however those arguments may weigh with Senator O'Reilly, who can visualise for himself what might happen in certain circumstances, they will not have very great weight with Senator Kingsmill Moore, Senator Sir John Keane or Senator Douglas. They seem to think that the only remedy for a situation in which a local authority refuses to maintain the public services at a reasonable standard is to allow everything to drift until it falls into chaos. They have been saying that, instead of proceeding as the section provides, we should allow these public authorities when they are manifestly refusing to discharge their public duty, to persist in that refusal. It was suggested that, even if they were corrupt, we might allow the corruption to continue until at long last the general public would rise in revolt and put them out. Now, one might as well argue that it would be a right and proper thing if a bridge on a main railway line was deteriorating in condition and had visibly become unsafe, to allow that deterioration to continue until at last one day, when a passenger train was going over it, the whole structure collapsed in chaos and destruction. Such is the solution for this problem with which I have been faced and that is seriously put forward in the Seanad which is supposed to be composed of elder statesmen as a remedy for the gravest public ill that can afflict a community, the deterioration and decay of local administration.

Well, that is not how I think the matter should be dealt with, and in saying that I am not arguing from any mere theoretical conception. I am arguing from practical experience. Among the county councils which were dissolved comparatively recently was the Kerry County Council. Now, in that case, this remedy that Senator Kingsmill Moore and Senator Sir John Keane have urged upon us was perhaps tried. I am not going to say that it was consciously tried. It was rather, perhaps, acquiesced in.

We had over a considerable number of years a county council which refused each year to provide adequately for the maintenance of the road system in County Kerry. The county council went out and another county council was elected. In the first year that it was elected it went even further along the road of improvident parsimony than its predecessors had gone, and it refused to strike an adequate rate. We reasoned with them. We even made special financial arrangements with them to help them, and only after it had been indicated to them that, if they did not meet us, we would hold a sworn inquiry and dissolve them, because it was quite clear that they would have to be dissolved, there not being any doubt about the facts, that they ultimately consented, after having secured special financial assistance in the way of a special allocation for the roads, to make any significant provision at all

In the following year, thinking, you see, that they had a soft person to deal with, they refused practically to make any provision for the maintenance of roads. They struck a rate which, I think, would have provided the equivalent of about £4 10s. 0d. per mile for the maintenance of main roads in the County Kerry, roads over which a great amount of turf traffic and beet traffic was passing, and in a county into which was flowing a considerable volume of supplies for its farmers and inhabitants. I held a sworn inquiry, and in due course the Kerry County Council vanished from the scene and was succeeded by a commissioner appointed by me. But what was the position in which the commissioner might have found himself? That, because the Kerry County Council had struck a completely inadequate rate, he would have been powerless to strike another rate, he would be powerless to raise money except by borrowing in respect of a county where the borrowings had already been very considerable and where very heavy liabilities were already resting on the ratepayers. We got over that difficulty where it did arise by making an Emergency Powers Order which gave the commissioner the right to make a supplementary rate. We were not called on to do that in the case of the County Kerry, but we were called on to do it in the case of Roscommon.

The Seanad can see what happened in Kerry by allowing things to drift as Sir John Keane would. That, in order to make good the failure of the Kerry County Council over a number of years, and principally over the last two or three years of its life, the rates in Kerry had to be increased by, I think, almost 10/- in the £. When I say that I am speaking from recollection, but they certainly had to be increased very considerably, and even at that, and even with special assistance in the way of grants that we were able to make to help the Kerry people to get out of this plight, the appropriation which they have been able to make since for the restoration of the roads has not been quite sufficient.

As a result of following Senator Sir John Keane's policy and the policy of Senator Kingsmill Moore in respect of the Kerry County Council, the Kerry ratepayers are going to have to carry very heavy burdens indeed during the next few years, years which may not be quite so prosperous for them as latter years have been when, by reason of turf production and other things, very considerable sums of money have been circulating in the County Kerry.

That is the sort of position which Senator Sir John Keane, Senator Kingsmill Moore and other Senators who are opposing this Bill, want to create in any other county in Ireland which at any time may have the misfortune to be administered in the way that the Kerry County Council was administered for years. I do not think that is a good thing and, having had this experience, I shall ensure that so long as I am Minister for Local Government, we will not have it again, and that my successor will not have it again: that, having learned from experience, I shall pass on to him the benefit of that lesson and put him in a better position to deal with this matter than I was before the Emergency Powers Order was made.

Now, another objection has been urged against this section, and that is the fact that the supplementary rate is going to be expensive. Senators will have to remember that it is contemplated that proceedings under this section will be taken immediately, or almost immediately, after the rate has been determined.

Instead of having prolonged delays, as we had in the case of Roscommon, the Minister, once the facts are brought to his notice, once a prima facie case has been established and once it has been made apparent that there are grounds for investigation, will then proceed to hold this inquiry. The Minister is not going to act arbitrarily in this matter. He will have a certain criterion which will guide him in coming to a prima facie view in the matter, the same sort of view as might be arrived at, say, by a person like the Attorney-General when a case is presented to him.

The Minister will have before him the cost of these services in the past year. He will have before him the valuation of the county, and the rate which was determined in respect of the year that has elapsed, and if he finds that by comparison there is a very marked and considerable reduction in the rate which it is proposed to strike, and that this reduction cannot be immediately and easily explained by some circumstances that are patent and clear to him and to everyone else, he may feel justified in requiring a further investigation into the matter; for he will then have an indication that the rate to be determined is likely to be insufficient. But he cannot act on that indication. That merely enables him, once he forms that opinion, to institute a more searching investigation, an investigation which will take place in public and which will be conducted on oath as these inquiries may be if necessary. It is as a result of the facts which will be elicited on that investigation that the Minister will then have to determine for himself whether the supplementary rate should be struck or not.

It has been argued that the striking of a supplementary rate is going to be an expensive matter. I have only one instance to guide me in that regard and that is what happened in the case of Roscommon County Council. In the case of Roscommon County Council we were not at the outset fully armed with the powers that we subsequently obtained under the Emergency Powers Order. The position that arose in that case was this: the estimates meeting was held on the 28th February to consider the rates. The county surveyor advised that £17,440 would be required for the main roads. The council proposed to reduce this provision to £5,500. I do not want to say much about the merits of this but let me remind the House of this fact that through Roscommon County passes one of the main arteries of this country, and that its roads in certain circumstances might have been of very great military importance. However, notwithstanding this fact, the Roscommon County Council, as I have indicated, proposed to reduce the county surveyor's estimate from £17,440 to £5,500.

The estimates meeting was adjourned at the instance of the manager from the 28th February to 13th March and this time the council proposed to reduce the estimate by £10,000 instead of roughly by £12,000 as originally contemplated by them. The engineer addressed the meeting and other officers also addressed the meeting but notwithstanding that the council held on its way. Arising out of this, a sworn inquiry was held on the 12th and 13th April and at this sworn inquiry the engineer and county officers came along and they testified on oath that it would be quite impossible to maintain the roads at a proper standard on the sum proposed to be allowed by the county council. There was no challenge to that on the part of the county council. It was not contended that the roads could be properly maintained on this sum of £10,000, though it was contended that this was as much as, in their judgment, the county council should be called upon to pay.

On the 27th April the Emergency Powers Order was made and on the 19th May a letter was addressed to the county council pointing out that the roads in Roscommon had been reconstructed in 1922 at very heavy expenditure, nine-tenths of which had been borne by the State and that the estimate as originally determined by the county council would be insufficient to maintain these roads. This letter I should say now did not go to the commissioner administering the affairs of the county council. It went to the county council the members of which had not then been removed from office. The council refused to amend their previous decision and its members were removed from office on 3rd June, 1944. On the 28th June the commissioner struck an additional rate of 7¾d. to provide the £10,000 to make good the deficit on the roads estimate.

I mentioned that to show that these proceedings, which actually started on 28th February, were unduly prolonged by reason of the fact that we had not the powers to act. The supplementary rate was struck finally on the 28th June, 1944, almost four months later. I think that is about as extreme a case as one could show of delay in a matter of this sort. We anticipate that if it should be necessary to utilise the powers to be given under Section 30, the whole of these matters will probably be disposed of in seven or eight weeks. It is desirable, in order that there should be no undue expense, that they should be disposed of promptly. In the case of Roscommon where it took almost four months to clear up the matter the rate applotment for the supplementary rate cost £204 and with the addition of printing the total cost of the rate was £265.

What would have been the position if the local authority had to go to the bank to borrow that money? They would borrow £10,000 at one-half under the bank rate, perhaps at 4 or 4½ per cent. Admittedly, they could not require it all at once but a very large portion of it would naturally fall to be borrowed during the period when road works would be at their height. Assuming that the average charge for interest was 4½ per cent. then in respect of the charge for that period of the year the council might have to pay, say, £300 for interest. In one year alone the interest charged would then exceed the cost of applotting and striking the supplementary rate and not only would the interest charged in one year have exceeded the cost of striking the rate but in every successive year until the loan was paid off you would have additional charges for interest. So that from the point of view of the local authority, if extra money has to be provided to make good a deficiency in a rate which has been struck, it is much more economical to provide it by striking a supplementary rate than by going to the bank to borrow it.

I think I have dealt fairly fully with all the points that have been raised in objection to this section and so far as I am concerned it rests there.

I thank the Minister for answering, not in their entirety but a fair number of the questions I put to him on Second Reading. I do not want to leave myself open to an accusation of irrelevancy but I did ask the Minister what reforms he had in view. At some other time, he might, perhaps, give us that information and state when the White Paper promised by the Taoiseach will come to our hands. The Minister chose, and was justified in choosing, very simple illustrations to justify this section. There cannot be much legitimate difference of opinion with regard to the maintenance of the roads. If the local authorities persist in their refusal to maintain the roads, I am not standing up, and my amendment does not purport, to defend them. The Minister has already power to do that effectively. He has given us reasons to show that the powers he seeks would be more effective than existing powers and, having heard his reasoned statement, I do not deny that, but he did not address himself to the circumstances I have in view in which there might be legitimate grounds for difference of opinion.

Take the case of large reform in the health services. The local authority might consider that adequate services could be provided for a rate of 1/- in the £. The Minister, acting on his advice, comes along and, presumably, instructs the manager—the manager does not get his ideas entirely out of his own consciousness—to put up a more ambitious scheme which might cost up to 3/- in the £. There is a legitimate difference of opinion there. The Minister may, on advice, favour a showy and expensive scheme. The local authority may consider that the service could be effectively provided in a much simpler manner. That situation is very likely to arise in the future if the reforms we are told about become operative. Whose view is to prevail? Is it in accord with the spirit of local government that an Order from the Minister should abolish the local authority because they adhere to their reasonable and more economical scheme? There is a deadlock, if one regards the matter reasonably. Who are the best judges of the charges which local authorities can be expected to bear? The local, elected representatives. What is to happen under the Bill before us? There is to be an inquiry of which the report will not be known. On the report of the inspector, the local authority is to be dissolved. Is the Minister satisfied that that is fair in respect of a question which arises not in connection with an existing service— I am not so much concerned about such services—but in connection with a new service, in view of the rather heady ideas prevalent of the new world and the new order and the wonderful services people are to have? The Minister seems to be lacking in appreciation of a situation of that kind. As reforms are in contemplation, cannot the Minister consider some form of arbitration machinery, referred to by Senator Sweetman, which would examine this matter from a semi-judicial angle and decide whether or not the scheme put forward by the local authority was adequate? The local bodies are elected for that purpose and their view should be respected. All that happens at the inquiry is that the Minister imposes his views on the local authority. That question will become increasingly important in the future. It is for that reason that I ask the Minister to view it from a completely different angle and in the light of encouraging local authorities to accept responsibilities and of encouraging the younger generation to take an interest in our local affairs.

Section put and declared carried.

On Report Stage, I shall bring in an amendment to Section 30 to deal with a point raised by Senator Mrs. Concannon which might, perhaps, create some difficulty. The Senator very acutely pointed to the words: "The Minister, after holding a local inquiry into the sufficiency of such rate, may require the rating authority" to do certain things, and pointed out also that this phrasing might be held to mean that the Minister should hold the inquiry in person. I disclaim any such intention and I shall make clear on Report Stage that I do not propose to do that.

Section 18 not moved.
Sections 31 and 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33.

I move amendment No. 19:—

In sub-sections (1) and (2) to delete the words "The Minister" in lines 27 and 33, and substitute the words "The local authority".

The section, as framed, provides that the Minister may, from time to time, divide a county into such divisions as are suitable for rate collection. In my amendment, I suggest that, instead of the Minister, the local authority being the persons on the spot acquainted with local conditions, should be the authority to make a division. I might perhaps save the time of the House if I stated at once that I would be prepared to meet the Minister if the Minister would be prepared to come some distance to meet me and if he would agree that the section should be so phrased as to read that "the Minister in consultation with the local authority may, from time to time by Order," etc. If the Minister is prepared to go that far, I am prepared to meet him.

It is not quite so simple as Senator Sweetman seems to believe. The present position, of course, is that the council may do this but it is the manager who acts for the council and the real purpose of this section is to allow the Minister to make certain adjustments where the manager and the council have been at variance. I do not think it necessary to put in the words "in consultation" because invariably then I should have to consult the manager and it might be very difficult to come to a satisfactory solution. I think that if the matter is left as it stands in the Bill, it will enable me to deal with difficulties where difficulties arise. In most cases they do not arise, but I think on the whole it is better that the section should be left as it stands.

The arrangement, in regard to say the division into dispensary districts is, I think, that the Minister sends down to the county council the draft Order that he proposes to make and asks the county council to send to the Department their observations on that draft Order. If the Minister indicates that he is prepared to adopt the same procedure in this case, I shall be quite satisfied.

I shall give them an opportunity of making representations.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 33 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 36.

I move amendment No. 20:—

To insert a new sub-section (2) as follows:—

(2) The appropriate Minister for all veterinary appointments shall be the Minister for Agriculture.

This section deals with the amalgamation of offices. It is an amendment actually of Section 32 of the Local Government Act of 1941 to the extent that it makes amalgamation apply to all offices whereas in the 1941 Act it referred to major offices only. I am moving my amendment because of the fact that Section 8 of the Act of 1941 actually caused a dissection of offices. No member of the Oireachtas, in passing the Act of 1941, assumed that this Section 8 would have caused what it has, in fact, caused. I shall read Section 8 of the Act of 1941:—

"Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-section of this section, the Minister shall be the appropriate Minister for the purposes of this part of this Act."

Sub-section (2) then states:—

"Where, in the opinion of the Minister, the duties of a particular office or of offices of a particular class or description relate wholly or mainly to the functions of another Minister of State, the Minister may, with the consent of such other Minister, by Order provide that such other Minister shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act be the appropriate Minister in relation to such office or offices and holders thereof and thereupon such other Minister shall for the said purposes be the appropriate Minister in relation to such office or offices and holders thereof."

Now, the net result of that was that, where previous to 1941 veterinary appointments for public health purposes under the Local Government Department and the diseases of animals section under the Department of Agriculture could be filled by the one person, subsequent to 1941 there had to be separate appointments because there were two appropriate Ministers. The Minister for Local Government was the appropriate Minister for appointments under the Public Health Acts and the Milk and Dairies Acts and the Minister for Agriculture was the appropriate Minister for all appointments under the Diseases of Animals Act. As a result of this system of appropriate Ministers, which we enacted in 1941, a division of duties has taken place in several appointments throughout the country. The purpose of my amendment is to obviate that in future.

When representatives of the Veterinary Medical Association gave evidence before the Milk Tribunal which sat recently in Dublin, we pointed out these defects. I am sure that the tribunal must have been impressed by what we told them on that occasion. The tribunal has not yet reported and I cannot anticipate what its findings will be, but I should like the members of the House to appreciate the incongruity that has occurred and the difficulties that have been imposed on local administration by the position as it exists to-day. At the Milk Tribunal we referred to this matter in the following way:—

"We would like to make reference here to a most uncalled for anomaly which again exists in the appointment of local authority veterinary inspectors. Since the coming into force of the Local Government Act, 1941, the Ministers for Agriculture and Local Government and Public Health are independent authorities as far as their particular interests are concerned in relation to the work performed by a local authority veterinary inspector. The effect of this is that, whereas formerly when a vacancy occurred in a district for a veterinary inspector, one post or appointment could be made to cover duties under the Diseases of Animals Acts and the Public Health Acts with the Milk and Dairies Act, at present with the Departments of both Ministers independent in their respective spheres, a former single post when being refilled has to become two posts for the filling of which the two Departments are separately responsible.

It took many years of arduous effort on the part of our association to rectify this situation in the past and for years composite appointments were made whereby one inspector was engaged to perform the duties under these Acts. The duties are naturally inseparable and the situation which has again been created by the passing of the Local Government Act of 1941 is grotesque in the extreme. The relevant clauses of the Act are in Part II, Section 8, sub-sections (2) and (3). We are sure that the Oireachtas never anticipated that this enactment would create the Gilbertian situation which we shall illustrate by the recently advertised post in the County Borough of Waterford. Interviews for the purpose of filling these appointments took place on last Friday, May 18th. When advertised our association wrote to both Departments protesting against the making of these two separate appointments. Two other such appointments, both part-time, however, which could possibly be filled by the same applicant have also been advertised for Longford, but also note that they are separate posts and could be filled by different applicants and then we would have a recurrence of the Waterford situation. We hand in copies of regulations governing these appointments by the Local Appointments Commission, and will illustrate what the sequelae will be."

That was the evidence presented to the Dublin Milk Tribunal. I might illustrate as briefly as possible what the sequelæ are in Waterford. A veterinary inspector has been appointed under the local government scheme as a public health official in Waterford. His duties are to supervise the production of milk for consumption in the borough and to supervise the meat which is slaughtered for consumption by the citizens of Waterford. When he finds a diseased animal in a dairy herd, say a cow affected with tuberculosis of the udder, he has to notify the part-time inspector under the Diseases of Animals Act, who then has to come along and make a further diagonsis—because, if he is a wise man, he would not take the other man's diagnosis. If it be a case of tuberculosis of the udder, he has to take a sample of milk and, being a part-time man, he has not the facilities which the whole-time man has. He has to furnish that sample to the Department of Agriculture Laboratory in Thorndale and await the confirmation that it is positive to tuberculosis. If it is a tuberculous—sputum case the same procedure applies. If that is returned, as it would be, having been originally diagnosed by the public health man, he has to come to an agreement with the owner on the valuation of the animal. Having done that— which is not so easily done and which may entail further delay—he might arrange the slaughter of the cow. They have a local authority abattoir in Waterford and the animal can be brought in and slaughtered there. He has to examine the carcase and then hand it over to No. 1, the food inspector under the local authorities' public health scheme. In practice, the position is much more Gilbertian than I have being trying to point out and it is not just what the efficiency of our local administration should be.

That is the net result of what we passed in 1941. This section deals with amalgamations, but what we did in 1941 absolutely divided appointments. Therefore, it is very important for the Minister to take cognisance of what I am saying here. I took a note of his statement this evening, that if he finds anybody making a convincing case he is prepared to listen to it and that he is a reasonable man. Well, anything I say here I endeavour to make as convincing as possible and I hope, that being a very reasonable man, he will consider the matters to which I have referred and which are of vital importance to the administration of the public health and veterinary services. It may not be quite as simple as is indicated by what I have said up to the present, but I maintain that it is a preliminary step which is quite feasible and that the Minister could accept this amendment as the first step towards implementation of the recommendations of the Post-Emergency Planning Committee on Agricultural Policy. I think it is quite relevant to read just a paragraph of the committee's recommendations, which indicates that those services should be implemented under the one authority and one authority only. Section 72 of the Third Interim Report of the Post-Emergency Planning Committee reads:—

"We are of opinion that efficient and economical service cannot be given in the existing conditions, and, as a first step towards reform, we recommend that the administration of those sections of the public health legislation which relate to the veterinary examination of meat and milk be brought under the control of the Minister for Agriculture, thus unifying all State veterinary services under the one authority. Such a step would remove the anomalies in the present system. It would facilitate the transfer of officers employed in the State service from one set of duties to another as circumstances demanded, e.g., pressure of work in a particular branch, holidays, periods of illness of officers, etc., and so make for greater flexibility, improved efficiency, and considerable economy."

That paragraph is the findings of the majority report—there was a minority report. On the other recommendations something has been done already, but in connection with the recommendations on veterinary services nothing has been done. This recommendation was made in conformity with the suggestions made to the planning committee by the veterinary profession. They were keen on a unification of control, whichever authority had it, but they considered that the Department of Agriculture, in the interests of the community, and of the farming community of the country especially, would be the more appropriate. That does not mean that the profession liked the smile of the Minister of Agriculture any more than they would like the smile of the Minister for Local Government. They made the suggestion in all seriousness in the interests of the community and of the farmers and not in the interests of the veterinary profession. They believe, as I believe, that if the recommendations of the committee can be implemented satisfactorily, it will be one of the greatest means of promoting increased production at less cost and that the increased output will be of great help to the national economy.

Besides being a preliminary step towards the implementation of this scheme, the acceptance of this amendment would also remove the ambiguity due to the passing of the Act of 1941. We have had long debates on what I maintain are much less important amendments than the one which I propose to the House, but I do not want to delay further at present. With more preparation of the matter, I could have gone into long and detailed explanation of the actual matters required for amendment in both the diseases of animals section and the local government section of the veterinary services. I hope the Minister will appreciate the fact that I have made the case as sincerely as possible in the short time that I wish to devote to it, and that, being a reasonable man, he will see that it is a matter for his serious consideration.

As I also happened to be present at the tribunal to which Senator O'Donovan has referred, I think it is right that I should say that the story painted by him as to the manner in which officers have to run about in regard to the same beast was fully borne out by the evidence produced before the tribunal. The enormous duplication of the same work certainly made a tremendous impression on everyone listening to the evidence. I wonder if, having said that, I would be out of order if I tried to get from the Minister some indication as to when the report of the Dublin Milk Tribunal, to which Senator O'Donovan has referred, will see the light of day.

I am afraid the Senator would.

A little disorder might gratify the Senator at this stage. I can say, in response to his inquiry, that the report is being drafted. It is a very difficult document.

I must confess that I am utterly at a loss in dealing with Senator O'Donovan's amendment, because I cannot see where it is immediately relevant to this Bill. If it were an amendment brought in to amend the Ministers and Secretaries Act, if it were an amendment to amend the Public Health Acts or the Cowsheds and Dairies Acts, and these measures were before the House I could understand it. But I cannot see how this Bill would seem to the Senator to offer a fitting opportunity to move it, for it seems to me to be completely inconsistent with what is in the principal Act. The Senator has mentioned Section 8 of the 1941 Act. That section prescribes the way for dealing with this problem, and the problem is in fact being dealt with under that section at the present moment.

The Minister for Agriculture has been designated as the appropriate Minister for local appointments as veterinary inspectors for duties under the Diseases of Animals Acts; the Minister for Local Government is, by statute, the appropriate Minister in connection with the posts of veterinary inspectors for public health duties. It is the Minister for Local Government who employs the whole-time officers. The suggestion in the amendment is that the Minister who has no use for the services of whole-time officers should be made by law the appropriate Minister for appointing officers to administer the Public Health Acts, perhaps the most important code of Acts that we have on the Statute Book from the point of view of the citizen and from the point of view of the welfare and health of the people. Now, I think it is unreasonable to try to coerce the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to transfer one of his most important functions under, as I say, the Public Health Acts to another Minister in this form. It would be much more reasonable on this Bill to put down an amendment to say that the appropriate Minister for all veterinary appointments shall be the Minister for Local Government and Public Health because, after all, the main purpose to which these veterinary inspections are directed is the preservation of the health of the people. I will concede that an important part of their functions, is the maintenance of the health of our live stock, but I think most of us will accept this situation that if there is going to be any competition for precedence in regard to matters of health that, at least, the health of the human being should take precedence and should be the paramount consideration.

I could not ask the Seanad to accept this amendment because I think it would create a completely wrong position. We cannot assume that even so important a Minister as the Minister for Agriculture should be charged with a paramount function under the Public Health Acts. It is a matter at any rate which can be settled under Section 8 by discussion between the two Ministers responsible if we are persuaded that this is the only, and the best, way of securing certain co-ordination between the veterinary services for which the Minister for Agriculture is responsible and those for which the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is responsible. That can be settled between the Ministers, and no doubt will be settled between them, when the problems which have been posed by the report of the Committee of Inquiry on Postwar Agricultural Policy and by the report of the Dublin Milk Tribunal come to be considered. I suggest, therefore, to the Senator that he is not really justified in trying to take advantage of this Bill to amend, by a side wind, two very important Acts, both of them fundamental, the Ministers and Secretaries Acts and the Public Health Acts. I ask the Seanad, if the Senator should press his amendment, to support me in my objection and to reject it.

I must say that I agree with what the Minister has said, that this amendment might be classified as a side wind, but as I felt strongly about it, I thought it right to bring the difficulties which undoubtedly exist to the notice of members of this House. I maintain that this is really a matter of national importance, and is one for Government policy to deal with. I very much appreciate the fact indicated by the Minister that it will mean arrangements for consultation between the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. I would be satisfied that I had attained my object if I could be assured that these consultations will take place in the immediate future and not in the distant future, because every day that passes under the present chaotic condition of things is, I think, a loss to the community. In the circumstances, I ask the permission of the House to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 36 agreed to.
SECTION 37.
Question proposed: "That Section 37 stand part of the Bill."

On Section 37, I want to say that I do not know what it exactly means. It is rather peculiarly worded.

The need for this section arises out of the fact that notwithstanding that it was made a condition of appointment, in some cases before the Act of 1941 was passed, that a woman holding office should be unmarried or a widow, cases have arisen in which that condition has not been honoured by the person appointed.

This does not arise out of mere prejudice but it does arise out of the need in the public interest of ensuring that, when conditions of appointment have been prescribed by the Minister and a person secures appointment on these terms, these conditions will be observed and the terms of the appointment will be honoured. As is well known in the case of local appointments, the Local Appointments Commissioners take a very strict view once the competition has been announced and they will not depart from or modify the conditions in any way until the competition has been held. The position has been created in some cases, I think, that where these conditions were prescribed prior to the Act of 1941 it was found not possible to enforce them. It is felt as a matter of public duty, where persons might have been debarred or deterred from applying for the post by reason of the fact that as originally advertised it carried the condition, then the person who was appointed should resign on marriage, and where that condition, though prescribed and has not been complied with, we are bound to ask the House to give us powers to ensure its compliance.

Am I to understand that the condition or agreement by which a person will hold office only while unmarried has been held to be of no effect?

Yes. The position is that, where prior to the passing of the Act of 1941, this condition, though prescribed as one of the terms upon which office should be held, has been found in some cases to be of no effect.

That meant that it was a restraint of marriage, I suppose?

No, not precisely on that account. I think it was because the Minister had not the power to make that condition although the Local Appointments Commission did make that condition.

That is the position all right.

Question agreed to.

SECTION. 38.

I move amendment No. 21:—

To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—

Every Order made under sub-section (1) of this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made but shall not come into operation or effect until it has been approved by resolution of each such House of the Oireachtas.

I put down this amendment to raise certain matters that I referred to also on the Second Reading of this Bill. Section 38, to which I am suggesting that an additional sub-section should be added, provides:—

"Where the appropriate Minister is of opinion that, on account of special circumstances, the duties of a particular office should not be performed during a particular period by the holder of the office in person, the appropriate Minister may by Order authorise the holder to perform the duties of the office by deputy during that period."

The Minister when he was introducing this Bill indicated on the Second Reading that there were already certain provisions in the Local Government Act, 1941, and presumably under the Orders made thereunder, by virtue of which, as I understood his references, there was already adequate provision in existence to deal with short absences and absences due to illness. I failed to find the exact circumstances. I presume the Minister was referring to the powers contained in Section 19 of the Local Government Act, 1941, and the power given to make regulations thereunder but I want the Minister to inform the House of the exact regulations so far in existence with this section and the exact powers that are in his Department with this section.

It is, of course, obvious that there must be power for a deputy to carry out duty during the illness of the holder of a particular office. That is, of course, self-evident and it is also self-evident that there must be power for the duties of a particular office to be carried out by a deputy during a period when the normal holder of that office is on his ordinary annual vacation. Apart from those cases, I suggested to the House on the previous occasion that it was entitled to know what are the type of special circumstances envisaged in this section. The only way the House could ascertain the type of special circumstances that are envisaged under sub-section (1) is for the House to be told in what cases and under what authority there has already been given the authorisation envisaged here.

In requesting that information, I was alarmed by the fact that there seemed to be so very little information or knowledge available to members of the Oireachtas of the particular cases in which this had occurred and of the particular circumstanes in which it was likely to occur in the future. So far as the past is concerned it seems to me to be clear that the manner in which some similar provisions which must have been somewhere have worked, must influence our consideration of this section. It appeared to be clear that if there was not to be in the future the same ignorance amongst public representatives of what was occurring that it would be necessary to put down something in the nature of the amendment which is at present before the House.

The purpose of that amendment is simple. It suggests that before the Minister makes an Order in special circumstances, that Order will be laid on the table of both Houses, and would, so to speak, be ratified by both Houses. I want to be perfectly clear as to the principle that is behind my amendment. I am not clear whether the wording of the amendment is concise enough and to the point. It would be highly undesirable that the Houses of the Oireachtas should be asked to decide whether Dr. A. is a satisfactory deputy for Doctor X. or not but the Houses of the Oireachtas should know, and it should be done in the most open way possible, what were the special circumstances envisaged in sub-section (1) of this section. If it is felt that my amendment is not sufficiently clear in that respect, that what I want publicised are the special circumstances, then I am quite open to any other phraseology which will make that point of view apparent and binding on the case of the sub-section that I suggest. It was brought to my notice, before the Second Reading of this Bill, that there was, at least, one case where, under existing procedure, the wife of a Parliamentary Secretary was carrying on the duties of dispensary medical officer of New Ross——

On a point of order, the Parliamentary Secretary is not here and cannot answer here. He is not, in fact, answerable here for what any relative or connection of his may do. On another occasion, when the name of another lady was brought into a debate here, I said that I thought it was quite wrong that advantage should be taken of this House to involve the personal position of any person who is not a member of the Oireachtas and in no way responsible to this House for his or her conduct.

No suggestion was made by Senator Sweetman that the Parliamentary Secretary was responsible to this House for the actions of his wife but the Minister for Local Government is responsible for the position whereby a person can act through a deputy.

The Minister is not responsible to this House and does not propose to be.

That is a constitutional point. Let us look at this matter in a general way. We are asked to pass a Bill and, in discussing the Bill, we are entitled to say what has happened previously under similar provisions or what has happened to create a situation in which an amendment of the law is necessary. Surely, when we are discussing this section of a Bill, it is open to any member to say that "special circumstances" had been construed as meaning so and so in the past and to ask if that meaning is to be attached to the provision of the present Bill when it becomes an Act. The Minister's contention, that no specific examples can be given, would nullify and render inoperative any power to debate sections of a Bill. I suggest that there is not a shred of constitutionality in the contention the Minister makes, that nothing can be said about the administration of his Department.

It is a well-established practice here that persons who cannot answer for themselves should not be named in the House. I myself was checked in the early days—on consideration, I think, quite properly checked—for mentioning a person who was not answerable to this House. The practice has been that such persons are not mentioned and, in the best interests of the House, I think that that practice should be continued.

It is not desirable that reference should be made to persons outside the House in debate here. A case could be made without mentioning names.

I shall always abide by the ruling of the Chair. I wish to make the case that the "special circumstances" which we have already seen in operation are such that a medical officer of a certain dispensary has been granted, according to the information before us, special leave of absence to perform duties through a deputy——

That is quite in order.

Because, I understand, that, for family reasons, it is desirable that the dispensary officer in question should live in Dublin. It appears to me that if those are, in the consideration of the Minister, "special circumstances", then this section of the Bill should not go through without provision for laying on the table of both Houses a statement of the "special circumstances" which make it necessary for such an order to be made. I do not want it to be suggested in any way that I am trying to attack any person who is not here. I am not. What I am attacking is the procedure which has existed and which we are entitled to assume will be the basis upon which this section will be operated in the future. If the Minister does not wish us to discuss the procedure which has operated in the past, then it seems to me that the proper thing for him to do is not to ask us to enact a section which is going to give that procedure statutory and legislative sanction for the future. The Minister has asked us to give this practice statutory recognition in Section 38. In his opening speech, he indicated that the situation was not satisfactory, that the position, as it existed, cast some doubt on the legality of persons carrying through their duty by deputy. Having said that, the Minister comes and asks us to put the question of the legality of the issue beyond doubt in this section. Although I shall bow to any ruling you, A Chathaoirligh, make, it is utterly impossible to discuss this section and the way in which it should be amended unless, at the same time, we consider what has been the practice, so as to see how it is likely to be operated in the future. It has been operated in the past in the way I have indicated. It has been operated in the particular case to which I have referred.

I can fully appreciate that there may be circumstances in which, in the national interest, it is necessary that the holder of a particular office should take a high position in the Government of the country and should, in so doing, render service to the country, as a whole. In circumstances such as those, it would be right to give special consideration to the problem. But those are national reasons and it should only be done in cases in which there was agreement that it was in the national interest. That can only be the case when the fullest publicity of every sort is given to what is done. If the fullest publicity be given, there can be no suggestion afterwards that there is anything in the nature of hole-and-corner methods in the transaction. If there is a genuine case, I cannot see either House of the Oireachtas being unwilling or refusing to meet it but, where there are not genuine special reasons then, I think, the Houses would properly refuse. Therefore, I think that the Oireachtas should be given an opportunity of expressing its views as to what are or are not genuine, special reasons and, for that reason, I put down this amendment. I should not have put it down if I had got the information I asked for on Second Reading.

I am rather surprised at this amendment because it would mean that, if an officer of a local authority should fall ill, or be called away for any reason, his duties could not be discharged until the House would sit. If the vacancy occurred about the month of August, this House would not be sitting and would we have to wait until October and leave the position vacant? It might be the position of a rate collector or of a medical officer or any other important position that was involved and, according to this amendment, the Order of the Minister would have no effect whatever. The duties could not be carried on, no matter how important they were if the amendment were carried in its present form.

I can quite understand Senator Sweetman's attitude in making use of any stick he can get hold of to have a crack at individuals in the Fianna Fáil Party or at the Fianna Fáil Party in general but I would suggest to Senator Sweetman that he should look a little bit nearer home if he wants to create any such precedent as he suggests in his speech. I suggest that he should examine his political conscience or the conscience of the political Party of which he is a member and I think he will find that there are several people in that Party who, if Senator Sweetman's suggestion were to be adopted, would be ruled out of membership of this House or the other House.

Ruled out of membership? May I suggest that this is completely irrelevant, that there is nothing in this section to rule out anybody from membership of this House? The Minister is well aware of that.

Or in the speech of Senator Sweetman? I am merely replying to the speech of Senator Sweetman.

May I again appeal to the Chair? Is there any question of membership of the Oireachtas arising out of the section?

There is not.

There is the question of the provision of a deputy. Am I in order?

Senator Hayes is not in the Chair. We need only go back to the time the last Government were in office. At that time we will find that there was a university professor who held his job at the same time as holding office as a Minister of the Government.

That is absolutely untrue. It is completely untrue. May I say again, on the point of relevancy, that this section deals with officers of local bodies and has nothing whatever to do with the question of membership of the Oireachtas?

I am all for allowing any man who thinks he has a chance of getting elected to this House or the other House to go forward as a candidate. What I am trying to point out is that Professor John Marcus O'Sullivan held office as Minister at the same time as he was a professor of the National University.

That is absolutely untrue. There was nobody who was a Minister and a professor of University College receiving emoluments at the same time.

He did not say anything about receiving emoluments.

I did not say "receiving emoluments".

When Senator Sweetman was addressing the House, I called attention to the fact that it was undesirable to mention names.

I had no intention of mentioning any names. I intended to be very careful. I merely wanted to point out that any man who thinks he has a chance of being elected to either House should not be denied the right to go forward, but if Senator Sweetman's proposal were adopted certain people in this country could not take the chance of going forward for election. We have in this House at the present time a number of doctors. We have certainly one who is not here now. Is it suggested that, on election, he should resign his position?

It is not.

That is not in the amendment.

With all respect, it is being provided for in the section.

On a point of order, may I recall to your mind the fact that Senator Sweetman addressed himself to the section and that he must know what was being done hitherto in order to deal with the section?

There is nothing in the section about university professors.

Senator Sweetman is obviously feeling very uneasy.

All the uneasiness is over there.

Senator Sweetman definitely directed his whole speech to Section 38. What I want to point out is that no man who is thinking of going up for election, if the suggestion of Senator Sweetman were adopted, could take the chance of doing so. Just imagine the position of any doctor down the country. Local people come along and ask him to go up for election and he says to them: "I do not think I can afford to go up for election." They would then say to him: "Of course you can appoint a deputy." Then he goes forward for election to this House. I take the case of a doctor without any reference to any particular person. We have several doctors who are very useful members of this House and the other House. The people approaching that man would say: "We want you to go up and of course there will not be another election for the next five years. You will be all right. Of course you will have to give up your job and another man will be appointed in your place." Do you think that any sane man would take that chance, not knowing but that there might be another election in three months? The same thing applies to Parliamentary Secretaries, who would have to resign. I believe it is a wrong principle and is a very serious mistake to consider any proposal of that kind. If Senator Sweetman wants to follow the matter further, we have doctors who are living here in the city and who are in positions in rather remote districts in country constituencies. Is that also to come up for discussion? I do not want to mention particular cases but we have also the case of chief executive officers of technical committees. Are they to be ruled out? I respectfully suggest that if Senator Sweetman's idea was put into effective operation and we cut down the number of people who would be eligible for election to this or the other House, you would thereby interfere with democratic rights in this country.

May I draw attention to the fact that this House is being led up a boreen in regard to this matter, and that we are likely to get lost eventually if we permit these personalities to continue any longer?

They are not permitted.

Unfortunately, Sir, we have had a surfeit of them already. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the amendment submitted by Senator Sweetman, irrespective of any arguments used in favour of it or against it, is a proposal that certain Orders made under Section 38 should be laid on the Table of both Houses and that they should be capable of being annulled by a majority vote in either House. That is what is involved.

Let me put it in another way, although it is the same thing——

It is not.

The proposal anyway is that the Order will not have effect until it is approved by both Houses. At any rate, it is giving to the House the right to say whether an Order made under the section will or will not have effect. This has nothing to do with the election of Deputies or Senators or the position of doctors or anybody else. So far as the drafting of the section is concerned, what is involved is this that in certain circumstances the Minister may take the view that on account of special circumstances the duties of a particular office, whatever it may be under a local authority, should not be performed during a particular period by the holder of that office. The Minister may then, if he takes that view, authorise the holder to perform the duties of the office by a deputy during that period.

Is the Minister to have an unlimited discretion to say whether or not a particular office should be filled for an unlimited period by a deputy and should the Minister permit the person holding the office to appoint a deputy without reference to anybody else? I think that is what is involved. It does not seem to me that it is the kind of thing that should be done very often. If the local authority appoints a county manager or a town clerk, they have a right to be consulted before anybody is appointed to perform the duties of that office in the name of the county manager or town clerk. That is what is involved in the amendment, because as the section stands the local authority need not be consulted and, in fact, will not be consulted. The Minister will determine that a particular officer shall discontinue performing the duties of his office. There is no discretion left to the officer in question. The Minister forms the opinion that he should not perform his duties and thereupon, by an Order, he prohibits that officer from performing his duties and orders that they shall be performed by a deputy.

Nominated by the holder.

Yes, but the Minister must be satisfied that the deputy has such qualifications as he thinks fit. What I am concerned with is that the local authority has got to find the salary of the person who is going to perform those duties and that the local authority should not be treated in this cavalier fashion, having imposed upon them a deputy of whom they may not approve and, perhaps, a deputy who, in their opinion, may be entirely unsuitable for the position. I think the House ought to have some regard in this matter for the interests of the local authorities and I think the Minister would be wise, in his own interest and to prevent these mud-slinging charges which were likely to develop here this evening, by having submitted to the House his Order authorising the office holder to perform his duties by a deputy. If there is a reasonable case for making the Order and if the Houses of the Oireachtas are satisfied that the interests of the local authorities are not prejudiced, I cannot imagine either House refusing to approve of the Order. I would urge the Minister to view the matter in that light, rather than in the light in which it has been viewed during this discussion.

There was never an instance, I think, in which petty Party politics carried those who were envenomed by them to greater extremes than is represented by this amendment. The members who sit in this House ought at least to have made themselves familiar with the provisions of the Constitution. This amendment clearly and unmistakeably relates to the exercise of his executive power by a Minister. Of that there is no doubt. If Section 38 passes the House in the form in which it has been presented to the House, the Minister will have the execution of that section. He will have the power to authorise a particular office-holder to appoint a deputy. That authorisation will be an executive act and nothing but an executive act. What is the purpose of this amendment? To take the executive power out of the hands of the Minister and put it into the hands of either House of the Oireachtas.

No, of both Houses.

This amendment drafted, if you please, by a lawyer, proposes to so bind him, so far as the exercise of his executive functions are concerned, that every Order he makes under the section shall be laid before both Houses, but shall not come into operation or have effect before it has been approved by a resolution of each House.

What does the Constitution provide? It provides in Article 28 (2) that the executive power of the State shall, subject—not to the provisions of any subsidiary law or any secondary law but subject to the provisions of the Constitution itself—be exercised by or on the authority of the Government. This amendment proposes that the executive power in a particular case shall be exercisable by or on the authority of the Houses of the Oireachtas, to the extent even that the essential executive act must be performed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is an executive act to pass a resolution making the action of a Minister, in the exercise of his executive power, effective. It is quite a different matter—and I readily admit it—where the Minister is given power by the Oireachtas to adapt or amend existing enactments, to require him to submit such adaptations to the approval of the Oireachtas, because such adaptations are, in fact, amendments of the law, though they may be temporary or minor amendments. But there is no such amendment of the law contemplated in this. The Minister has power already under the law to make regulations governing questions of legal absence and the exercise of functions by executive officers all through the State. This section proposes to confirm that power, because there were indications that it may be necessary to have more definite and specific power than was given originally in this matter. I submit, on these grounds, that this amendment is unconstitutional, that it is repugnant to the Constitution and that in that light it is, perhaps, out of order.

It is all very well to say that we ought to try to discuss this matter without reference to persons or personalities of individual officers. However, the ground upon which the amendment was submitted to the House was that I should come here to this House and give an account of my stewardship. Again, let me remind the House that the Government is not responsible to the Seanad, nor is any member of the Government responsible to the Seanad. The Seanad neither votes supplies nor does it approve of Ministers nominated by the Taoiseach.

The Seanad passes the Appropriation Bill, of course.

Because it can do nothing else.

That is the authorisation of supplies.

It does not vote supplies and it cannot impose taxation. It may make a recommendation to the other House that taxation should be imposed, but I have, to the best of my recollection, yet to learn that in any significant matter a recommendation to impose taxation made by this House was ever accepted by the other House. However, that is not quite relevant. The main issue, as I have said, is that the Minister and the members of the Government are not dependent on this House for the voting of supplies, and they are not to be approved by this House, and for these reasons are not responsible to this House.

I have been asked by Senator Sweetman to set out for the consideration of this House a list of the persons in respect of whom the Minister has exercised his right of sanction to the discharge of their functions by deputy. If I were to do that I should be putting myself in the position that I accepted what seems to be the primary principle underlying the Senator's demand, that I am responsible to this House. I deny that I am, and, therefore, because I deny that, I am not going to do anything that would imply that I in any way hold myself responsible to the Seanad for my executive acts. Now, I have as great a respect for this House as anybody else, but I have a greater respect for the Constitution; therefore, I am not going to do anything which would imply that, contrary to the terms of the Constitution, I am responsible to the Seanad for the manner in which I exercise my executive functions.

Now, is it suggested that there is anything wrong in the provision that an officer of a local authority, or an officer of the civil administration, should discharge his or her functions by deputy if circumstances warrant it?

I made it quite clear that there was not in my view.

I would just like to deal with that matter for a moment because I think—I do not want to say that it was implicit in it nor do I want to say that it was inherent in it—that the Senator's speech did carry the innuendo that there was something wrong in permitting a person in certain circumstances to function by deputy.

Something wrong in what?

In permitting a person to exercise his functions by deputy.

It might be wrong in certain circumstances, obviously.

The insinuation seems to be that in general it was wrong.

It all depends on which side he is in politics.

That would seem to be it. Senator Quirke has hit the nail on the head—in the minds of some people it all depends on which side he is in politics. Perhaps that might be the view that Senator Sweetman and Senator Hayes take of the matter, but it is not my view—but perhaps I might be allowed, without any further interruption, to develop the point which I was going to make: that it might be better in certain circumstances if people did formally apply to the responsible Minister to appoint a deputy rather than to take french leave. I was asking is it wrong that a person should be permitted in certain circumstances, to exercise his functions by a deputy? If a person is elected by the people as their representative, and if at the same time he holds a public office which may be part-time or whole-time, and particularly if it is part-time, are we to say that he is not going to be permitted to fulfil his functions as a representative of the people because he happens to be say, a part-time servant of a local authority?

Now it could be argued, I think, quite cogently, that no person should place himself in that position, and that no holder of an office should submit himself for election. Many arguments could be adduced in support of that point of view. I am not adducing them now, and I am not going to traverse them if they are adduced, but the position at present, at any rate, is that there are many offices, the tenure of which does not prohibit a person from submitting himself to the electorate. Therefore, in these circumstances, if a person holding such an office avails himself of his present legal and constitutional rights to go forward for election, I think that the Minister concerned is constrained—and I have always acted on that principle—to afford him the facilities which may be necessary to enable him to discharge the duties of his office.

Will the Minister say where the local authority comes into this matter?

We are dealing with the Minister. I say the Minister is constrained to do that. Remember that these regulations have been framed— particularly the 1942 regulations for which I am responsible, and for which I take the fullest responsibility——

Article 10.

——on that basis. If the law had been otherwise, the regulations would have been otherwise, but so long as the position is that the holders of certain public offices are qualified to sit in and to be elected to this House, I think I am constrained to have due regard to their duties as representatives of the people, and to facilitate them in the discharge of those duties. Therefore, the position is, as we have it to-day, that the holders of certain positions in the State—members of this House if they happen to hold certain offices under local authorities—can exercise their functions in these offices under a local authority by deputy. I think, if I may say so, that that is a much better position from the public point of view than that the holders of these offices should exercise their public functions as members of the Oireachtas without having secured the assent or the sanction of the appropriate Minister because when the Minister gives his sanction to a deputy, at least he has the assurance that proper provision has been made for the discharge of the duties of these local offices. So far from imposing any barrier in the way of an appointment of a deputy by the holder of an office under a local authority who happens to be a member of the House, I would facilitate a member of the Oireachtas in the appointment of such a deputy because I should then know that, as I have said, proper provision had been made for the discharge of the duties of that local office. I would know also that the person who appointed the deputy would be responsible for the deputy whom he had appointed.

I am talking, now, merely in relation to an office under the Department of Local Government, an office under the local authorities, an office for which I am responsible. I think it is a highly undesirable situation that men, filling responsible posts under local authorities, men whose duties in the Oireachtas necessitate their attendance here at hours at which they normally would be expected to be in attendance locally, should appear to ignore their obligations in this matter. I think it is very undesirable that they should appear not to have made any proper provision for the discharge of their functions by a deputy. I deprecate that position, though I have never mentioned it before, and would not have mentioned it now, except that this matter was raised by Senator Sweetman and Senator Hayes. Since the matter has been raised and since the matter has been touched upon I think it is necessary for me now to say that publicly so that those who have been guilty of this lapse—and I think it was a lapse—who have absented themselves from the scene of their duties and of their functions during the period that the Oireachtas has been sitting, without having made, in my mind, proper and explicit provision for the discharge of the duty of their local offices, will now repair that omission and make good their deficiency.

Might I, without involving myself in what I conceive to be a private row here, and in which I am really on the side of the Minister, ask him if he would think of bringing in an amendment on the Report Stage limiting the sanction to a period of six months, or even a year, so that it would come up again? It seems to me that there is a lot in what the Minister has said, but that he ought to be in a position to renew that sanction again. I think that, on the Minister's constitutional statement, I am in agreement with him. I want to deal with the matter from a different method of approach, as to whether the Minister should not consider, from time to time, whether the circumstances which induced him to grant his permission were continuing.

I quite readily agree and I am not at all averse to having a periodic review by the Minister.

That is all I am suggesting.

But a periodic review by the Houses of the Oireachtas of the Minister's executive function is another matter.

And I am with the Minister on that.

I would like to say a few words on this amendment and on the section that has been discussed here. It is, indeed, very touching to find such extraordinary solicitude for the private affairs of individuals. Really and truly, Sir, I cannot say how touched I am to find Senator Quirke and the Minister so enthusiastically in favour of nobody's name being mentioned lest, possibly, their private affairs be impinged upon or, perhaps, their feelings hurt.

And the House is in favour of it, too.

Oh, yes, and I was always in favour of it, but when one feels he has made a convert, one might be allowed a little, even if irrelevant, boast. When the Minister gets up to say in his most pious and impressive way that we must get away from envenomed politics, I am, indeed, deeply touched. I would, indeed, like to pay tribute to the Minister for his endeavours all his life to sweeten Irish politics and remove the venom from them.

On the question of the amendment and the section, however, it seems to me that the amendment has, without doubt, the very flaw which Senator Sweetman himself mentioned. Senator Sweetman put down this amendment, I think, because of the extraordinary attitude adopted by the Minister on the Second Reading. Whatever about the Minister's not being responsible to the Seanad for his own administrative acts, there can be no doubt whatever that when legislation is brought into this House we are entitled to inquire what the administration has been like in similar matters in the past. When the Minister brings in a section like Section 38 of this Bill, which says that on account of special circumstances, he can take certain powers to do certain things, it is absolutely in order for a member of the House to inquire from the Minister on the Second Stage, for the purpose of getting his own mind clear in the matter, what the Minister has in mind as special circumstances.

It is quite clear from this section that there is some flaw in the existing provisions under which deputies have been appointed for certain people. I am inclined to agree that it would be a very bad thing if the Houses of the Oireachtas would have to discuss—and Senator Sweetman himself said this— whether Doctor A or B, or Rate Collector C. or D should have a substitute and under what circumstances. That, I think, is an undesirable thing, but, at the same time, the Minister has not given us any indication of what he has in his mind as special circumstances. There has been, therefore, a tendency to put the debate on an entirely false basis.

There has also been, and it is typical of the Minister and his supporters, an endeavour to carry through the debate in a manner resembling the story I have told here before—the old Irish story "Cloche Ceangailte agus Madraí Scaoilte."

That is the story of an old lady who went into the house on a frosty night. The dog barked at her but she could not take up the paying stones to throw at the dog because they were frozen and the old lady said it was a hard case to have a dog loose and the stones tied.

Here we have had the attitude that there must be liberty of debate on one side, but that everybody else must correspond to a high standard and to hard-and-fast——

Surely, Sir, that is a reflection on the Chair. Surely it is unfair to suggest that anybody in this House has not got free permission to talk on some things. If we err in any way it is in the other direction.

I make no such reflection.

Who opened this debate?

It is a reflection, of course.

No. I agree, Sir, that we have all got from the Chair, the utmost liberty, sometimes, indeed, verging on licence.

I am afraid so.

We are all agreed on that account and we are all agreed on a proportion of other things as well. I agree entirely with the Minister that we could have an interesting debate as to whether employees of local bodies of a certain type or of any type, should be eligible for membership of the Oireachtas, but, at the moment, employees of local bodies may be members of the Oireachtas and once you have in existence legislation which does that for them, then quite clearly they ought to be facilitated in appointing substitutes to the extent necessitated by their duties as members of the Oireachtas.

You can easily imagine a number of other special circumstances arising. An employee of a local authority might be in the Army during the emergency, or he might be asked to serve upon a commission by the Government. If he were so asked to serve on a commission by the Government there certainly ought to be power, such as this, for the Government that asked him to act to allow him appoint a substitute. Similarly you might have service in a great many other ways.

What other considerations are there? I do not think that the wife of a member of the Oireachtas is in the same position as a member of the Oireachtas. There is no doubt at all about that. That seems to me to be quite plain. There is nothing derogatory or offensive in saying there are special circumstances, and it can be argued; but the point is what are the special circumstances as distinct from membership of the Oireachtas, illness, holidays and special services to the State. I can quite imagine that in connection with some commission dealing with local government that a particular officer might be asked to serve for a certain period—say for six months. Obviously, a substitute should then be appointed, and there is nothing wrong with this section that I see except that there is in it the same principle there was in Section 30 and the same principle that seems to exist in the Minister's mind all the time. The principle is, and particularly under Section 30, that the Minister makes the local body do what seems to the Minister to be reasonable. The whole thing hinges on what is reasonable and who has the power to decide that.

Similarly here the Minister decided there are special circumstances and carefully refrains from giving us an idea of what the special circumstances are. I think he could give us an idea of what these special circumstances are as distinct, for instance, from the circumstance of membership of the Oireachtas.

In that he was absolutely right. Senator Sweetman already indicated that he agreed with the Minister on that and was making no point about it. So long as the law allows the employee of a local body to be a member of the Oireachtas, there are certain necessary consequences. But does that apply to people other than members of the Oireachtas and to what classes of people should it apply? The Seanad is not exceeding its powers in asking the Minister what sort of people he has in mind. This matter can be discussed on a rational basis, without slinging names across the House and without the making of threats, veiled or open.

A Chathaoirligh, what threats were made—veiled or open? That is a very serious statement to make.

That is not a question for the Cathaoirleach and I take it that he could not answer it. Without any solemn warnings on the part of the Minister to anybody, we should be told what are the "special circumstances" he has in mind, as distinct from membership of the Oireachtas, service to the State and prolonged illness. I should agree completely with a provision by which the Minister, when faced with illness on the part of a faithful servant of a local authority, would have ample power to allow a substitute to be appointed and to act as long as possible in the hope that the officer suffering from illness would be able to resume duty.

We should all be in favour of that but what other circumstances has the Minister in mind. He did not tell us anything about such circumstances. He devoted himself to demolishing an argument which nobody had put up. One would imagine that we had argued that members of local authorities should not be members of the Oireachtas.

There is no doubt that one is entitled to take into account previous practice and to ask whether substitutes can be appointed, and for how long, for certain types of people who are not members of the Oireachtas and do not appear to be fulfilling any public function. It is obviously desirable that husbands and wives should live in the same place but that is a domestic matter and not a question of public service or public duty. What the Minister was asked to explain was what sort of "special circumstance" he had in mind. The amendment was put down for the purpose of getting the Minister to do that. So far as that is concerned, it has been a complete failure, because the Minister has explained everything but that.

I am afraid that a great deal of the heat which developed during the debate on this amendment is due to the unfortunate phrasing of the section, because the marginal note says "performance of duties of office by deputy". The word "deputy" created a political flare-up. If the word "substitute" had been in the section, I do not think we should have had this acrimonious debate. In future, I suggest that the Parliamentary Draftsman take steps to avoid any explosive form of terminology.

Senator Duffy spoke about the local authorities being overruled. Under Section 19 (1) (j) of the Local Government Act, 1941, the Minister has power to make regulations providing, in case of holders being ill, absent or incapacitated, for the performance by deputy of such of their duties as relate to the functions of the local authority. In pursuance of that power, the Minister made regulations, contained in Article 10 of the Local Government Officers' Regulations, 1943 (Statutory Rules and Orders, 1943, No. 101) which provides in sub-article 1 that a medical officer of a hospital or dispensary district may be authorised by the manager from time to time to perform his duties, for a limited period subject to any conditions imposed by the manager, through a deputy. Sub-article 3 says:—

"In granting any authorisation under sub-article 1, the manager shall comply with any directions given by the Minister, from time to time, and applicable to the case".

So far as medical officers of hospitals or dispensary districts are concerned, the manager, providing he obtains the consent of the Minister, may permit a medical officer to perform his duties by deputy. I am sure the Minister could make further regulations under Section 19 (1) (j) providing for cases of officers of local authorities other than medical officers. Apparently, the Minister thought it necessary to introduce into this Bill a section giving him express power to authorise the performance of the duties of an office of a local authority by a deputy in addition to the powers given him by Section 19 of the Local Government Act, 1941. I cannot see why this amendment was put down except to provoke a rather noisy discussion. Therefore, I think that Senator Sweetman should now make a virtue of necessity and ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

As a person rather vitally concerned in this matter, I should like to make a few comments. In my own case a deputy was appointed. I realised that such an appointment was very desirable——

It would be better not to deal with personal cases.

Mr. O'Reilly

I merely wanted to show that my own conscience was clear. As I am the only person who fits in——

I again say, Senator, that it would be undesirable to deal with any individual case.

Mr. O'Reilly

While this section, as it stands, pleases me, individually, and while I thoroughly agree with the principle expressed by the Minister, I still think that some minor changes might be made in it which would go a long way to meet some of the objections that have been raised. Senator Duffy pointed out that the local authority did not appear to come into the matter at all. He suggested that it would be in the power of the Minister, without any application from the local authority, to make an Order that the duties of an office should be discharged by deputy. I should feel more comfortable, and I am sure that other officers in the same position would do so, if, in the third last line, words were inserted to this effect: "the appropriate Minister may, on the application, or with the consent, of the local authority, authorise the holder to perform the duties of an office by deputy." A further difficulty arises in the case of local officers who are members of the Oireachtas because they are not absent for a definite period. They are absent for short periods. I suggest that, to meet that case, the words might be altered to "during a particular period or periods". Similarly, in the last line, if the words "during such period or periods" were inserted, they would go a long way to meeting the objection that has been raised. If a local authority gives its consent to the absence of an officer for a lengthy period, I do not think there could be any reasonable objection from any member of the House because the local authority as the body intimately concerned, has assented to that prolonged absence. There are two classes of absence concerned, absences for a long period and short absences—perhaps once a fortnight for certain periods. If these little amendments were made, I think it would go a long way towards solving the difficulties which have been mentioned. Speaking for myself I would feel much more comfortable if we had some formal recognition of the local authority in this section.

I do not know what my friend means by "the local authority". If he means members of the council, I should like to point out that, under the County Management Act, the members of the county council have no control whatever over any officer. They have no power to regulate his pay, his terms of his office, his duties or anything else. If the word "council" is put in, it would mean the county manager.

That would not apply to certain bodies.

It applies to local government officials. There is also in Section 10 of the Act of 1941 a provision which allows any officer to appeal to the Minister direct if there is any dispute between him and the county manager. That is a very important provision which is very often availed of. With regard to the points raised by Senator Hayes as to what are special circumstances, I should like to ask the Minister if it is a fact that he has given leave of absence to an officer for the purpose of improving his position or qualifying for a better position?

That is a very important matter. It allows a local officer an opportunity of qualifying for a better position in the service or in another service.

Like taking a D.P.H.

Exactly.

Of course, if he were a member of the Oireachtas I suppose we should refuse him!

I did not say that he should be refused. I am all in favour of it.

Nobody has referred to the right of nomination which is given to the holder. What is the reason for that? Surely it is not mandatory on the Minister. It seems highly undesirable to limit appointment to the office or to relate the office to any powers of nomination by the holder. There is also nothing that I can see in the section dealing with emoluments. I am trying to call the attention of the Minister——

I am listening to the Senator.

Generally I notice in the law courts that counsel ceases to speak when the judges confer.

More promotion for Senator Quirke!

I was merely leaning forward to hear more clearly what the Senator had to say.

In view of the public anxiety in relation to this question of deputies, I think it is very advisable to have a statutory provision that none of the emoluments of the office should be retained by the holder while a deputy is acting or alternatively that the deputy should receive the entire emoluments. I think that is very important. The Minister has not said on what terms deputies are to be appointed.

That is somewhat wide of the amendment.

If the Senator is speaking on behalf of the medical profession, he should be given a chance to elaborate his ideas.

I should like this question of the right to nominate to be considered. I should also like to see a statutory provision that no emoluments of the office should be retained by the holder.

On a point of order, what word "nominate" does the Senator refer to? It says: "perform the duties by deputy", but it does not say "nominate".

Oh, yes, it says, "nominated by the holder". I am surprised the Senator does not see that. Nobody has referred to that. Why should the holder be given that status?

I beg the Senator's pardon. He has been rather scathing about my alleged inattention to his observations, but I did point out that one of the reasons why it was proposed that the holder of the office should appoint his deputy is that we could hold him responsible for the work of his deputy.

I apologise to the Minister for not hearing that. I was listening as eagerly as I could to what he said but it is very often difficult to hear everything. In what way can the holder be held responsible? Responsibility implies some sanctions. Is it contemplated that if the deputy misbehaves himself penalties will be inflicted upon the holder? It is a very strange position.

The right to nominate a deputy might be withdrawn.

The harm might be done then. What is the object of giving him the right of nomination at all? The Minister says he is given the right to nominate a deputy in order to make the holder responsible. I fail to see how that would affect the position in any way. Once the deputy is there, the deputy carries on and if the deputy is incompetent or misbehaves himself, surely no penalty can be inflicted on the holder. Surely it would be an important and a reasonable precaution to remove the right of nomination, even though it is subject to the approval of the Minister and to state specifically that no emoluments of the office should be retained by the holder during the deputy's tenure of the position. There is one further point in regard to the question of special circumstances. I know a case where special circumstances have been very much overstrained and I can give the Minister particulars if he wishes.

I thought I made it perfectly clear, when introducing the amendment, that I quite appreciated that holders of offices could render to the nation great services in the Government and in the Oireachtas and that they could not render that service unless they were permitted to appoint deputies. Therefore, I felt that that was a case in which the Oireachtas would, without question, adopt the Order made by the Minister. However, I see the force of the argument that that adoption of the Minister's Order would not be operative at the time when the particular person was seeking election and that, therefore, a reasonable case is made against the exact wording of the amendment. I am quite prepared to admit that a case has been made against the amendment in its existing form on that basis. I still think that the special circumstances are things that should be defined and that the Oireachtas should approve of the general definition. It is very undesirable that the Oireachtas should be brought into the appointment of particular deputies, but I wish to deal with what I described as the special circumstances. Frankly, I am not satisfied that all the circumstances which can be operated under this section are special and because I am not satisfied of that I considered it necessary to deal with the matter in the way I did. So far as the House is concerned, I am quite satisfied either to have the amendment put or to withdraw it.

Question put and declared negatived.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. to 3 p.m., Thursday, 4th July, 1946.
Top
Share