Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Apr 1955

Vol. 44 No. 13

Local Government Bill, 1954—Committee Stage.

Before we take up consideration of the amendments tabled for this Bill, it would be as well if I indicated that there are certain amendments which I consider out of order and they may not be moved. These amendments are Nos. 10, 11, 19, 20 and 32.

I consider Nos. 10, 11 and 19 out of order because they increase the charge on the Exchequer, which is not permissible in an amendment by a Private Member.

Amendments Nos. 20 and 32 are also out of order as they deal with matters outside the scope of the Bill.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."

I am advised that, under this section, duties can be imposed on an officer of a local authority without his consent and even without his knowledge which he never agreed to perform when he was appointed to his position. I understand that, if that is done, he has no remedy but to resign, and presumably if he does resign, he will get no pension. A similar position arises under the section with regard to an officer whose duties have been transferred— he is to lose some of his duties and presumably also some of his remuneration. I should like the Minister to clarify the position and, if possible, to assure me that my interpretation of the section is incorrect.

The House will appreciate that it is essential now that an officer of one local authority should perform certain duties for another, particularly in these days of regional spheres, be they in health or otherwise. An officer who is aggrieved by the decision to transfer him has a statutory right under the 1941 Act to appeal to the Minister. That right is not being taken from him. He has that statutory right under Section 10 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1941, and I may bring it to the notice of the House that, under Section 59 of this Bill, the making of an agreement or arrangement under the section between one local authority and another, or a statutory body, is a reserved function and not an executive function. That being so— such a transfer or agreement being a reserved function — and the person being transferred having that right of appeal, I think every person will be protected.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (1), line 36, before "direct", to insert "in consultation with the local authority".

This section provides that the appropriate Minister may direct that the remuneration of all the offices in relation to which he is the appropriate Minister—that is not the Minister for Local Government but any one of the many Ministers who may send directions to local authorities—or of such of those offices as belong to a specified class, description or grade, or of a specified one of those offices, shall be inclusive remuneration. That is giving authority and power to a number of Ministers to make regulations, so far as remuneration is concerned, without any consultation with the local authority concerned. This Bill is supposed to give back power to the local authorities and here we are giving, not to one Minister but to a number of Ministers, power to give directions and taking from the local authority any say in the matter of what remuneration should be paid to persons who may be appointed.

It is a very serious matter because I consider that the Minister, in exercising powers under this section, would be naturally inclined to be in order, in relation to remuneration to be paid to a particular service, one applicable to the whole country. The Minister will agree with me when I say that it is not the best way of fixing remuneration. It should be a matter for the local authorities to decide. The works involved in different counties, the areas to be covered, and so forth, are vastly different. In that regard I think a very desirable suggestion is being made to the Minister in asking him that this power should not be exercised, except in consultation with the local authority concerned, and where agreement is reached as to the remuneration to be paid to the various types of officers appointed.

I am in full agreement with the Senator, but the amendment is superfluous and absolutely unnecessary. If the Senator would refer to the section, and study its import, he will see how unnecessary the amendment is. Directions, first of all, as to inclusive remuneration require the consent of the holders of the office. That is essential. If the holder was going to lose, there would be an application for an increase in salary. Directions as to the inclusive remuneration are practically always associated with increases in salary. I think that is the case the Senator visualises. It is the local authority which awards such increases. Therefore, the local authority must be a party to the arrangement. If the local authority are going to award the increases, then, ipso facto, they are a party to the arrangement, and know all about it. Therefore, the Senator will understand that the amendment is absolutely unnecessary.

I think this section refers to the remuneration of persons now in receipt of fees for various services. Here you are taking away from a person appointed under a particular contract, as it were. You are now saying that these funds naturally will go into the revenue of the local authority, but the Minister still is the person who is to decide what the remuneration will be. I cannot see why, under this section, the local authority has power to make any decision. Of course, persons must give their consent to it.

I can assure the Senator and the House that it is the local authority which grants such increases. Increases in inclusive remuneration will be by agreement between the holder of the office and the local authority. First of all, there must be agreement. We may take it that if the holder of an office enters into such an agreement, he will do so only provided it increases his remuneration. It is the local authority which grants increases in remuneration and not the Minister. The Minister has no function whatsoever other than to sanction it. It is the local authority which enters into agreement with the holder of a particular office. Therefore they are not unaware of what is going on. The Senator's amendment "in consultation with the local authority" will be observed in practice. It is essential that it should be carried out because they are the people who are going to sanction the increased remuneration. I can assure the Senator that his amendment is absolutely superfluous in so far as that is concerned.

Arising out of the Minister's reply, if the local manager recommends it, does the Minister take him as representing the local authority?

The Senator will remember that that is a reserved function.

Now we know where we are. Therefore, he will not consult the local authority?

Perhaps the Senator does not distinguish between a reserved function and an executive function. This is a reserved function and not an executive one.

I am objecting to looking on the manager as the local authority.

Perhaps it is a little bit ambiguous. There is a Bill before the Dáil at the moment which gives powers to the local authority to veto every increase or decrease in the salaries of permanent officials. When that Bill becomes law, there will be no increase without the absolute sanction of the local authority—I mean the elected representatives of the people. The Bill which is at present before the Dáil and this particular section must be read in conjunction with each other. I think that should meet the point raised by Senator Hickey.

Why look upon the manager as representing the local authority or the local authority as representing the manager?

The Senator knows much better than I do that a reserved function is something which is reserved to the local authority, and an executive function is something which is in the absolute discretion of the county manager. They are two completely different things. This will be a reserved function and the local authority will have full powers to veto every increase or decrease of salary when the County Management (Amendment) Bill becomes law.

The Minister has shifted his ground somewhat. He referred to a Bill which is before the Dáil. I think we should consider only the Bill which is before us now. It is complicating matters a little by referring to a Bill which is to come before us later. As far as I can see, the purpose of this amendment is that where persons in the employment of local authorities receive fees of one kind or another at present, and where the occupants of these posts die or resign, there will be brought about a change in the system of appointment, and the change will be in the nature of an inclusive remuneration. That is the procedure which has been adopted up to the present.

It is proposed now to do away with this system and have an inclusive salary. But the filling of these posts is in almost every case referred to the Local Appointments Commission. It is here the question arises as to who is going to fix remuneration increases of that kind. It is not altogether a matter, if the present holder of an office agrees that he has received fees of £600 per year for the particular post he occupies, of either the local authority or the manager saying: "We are going to change that. We are not going to abolish fees. These fees will be paid in future into local government funds and we are going to give you an inclusive salary of £700 a year." That would be an increase of £100. But it is the Minister who is in this section all the time taking the power of giving the direction. I cannot therefore see the Minister's point of view that he is entirely in sympathy with the idea that it should be in consultation with the local authority. I ask the Minister to look into this question between now and the Report Stage.

I will certainly look into the question.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."

Paragraph (5) of Section 12 states:—

"A local authority may, with the general or particular approval of the appropriate Minister, abolish offices, but in the case of an office held by a person in a permanent capacity, it shall not be abolished save with the consent of that person."

This, I understand, covers much the same case as we discussed on Section 9, that these offices will be abolished only on the death or resignation of the present holder. But the Minister is still making provision that these offices can be abolished and that the consent of the present holder be taken into account. The wording of Section 17, which deals with much the same matter, is as follows:—

"On account of any alteration (whether it has already occurred or is in contemplation) in the nature or extent of the duties attached to such office, it is in the public interest that such office should be abolished."

In Section 12 there is no account taken of whether it is or it is not in the public interest that this change should take place. The only condition laid down is that you must have the consent of the present occupants. Paragraph (6) of Section 12 states:—

"An appeal under sub-section (2) of this section shall not be brought after the expiration of six months after the decision is communicated to the officer."

I had experience of cases where the six months' period, owing to illness, was not sufficient. However, I do not stress that point. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the necessity to have the public interest taken into account in any implementation of this section, as it is in Section 17.

The Senator and the House will be able to distinguish the difference between Section 12 and Section 17. Paragraph (4) of Section 12 states:—

"For the purposes of this section, a local authority may, with the general or particular approval of the appropriate Minister, create offices either on a permanent or a temporary basis.

(5) A local authority may, with the general or particular approval of the appropriate Minister, abolish offices, but in the case of an office held by a person in a permanent capacity, it shall not be abolished save with the consent of that person.

(6) An appeal under sub-section (2) of this section shall not be brought after the expiration of six months after the decision is communicated to the officer."

I do not know exactly to which sub-section the Senator refers. I take it he is in agreement with sub-section (6) as prescribed in the section. I take it that the Senator has no objection to that. With regard to the six months' period in regard to an appeal, the reason that was put in was that I, as Minister, have been asked to allow appeals of officers, whose offices were abolished a considerable number of years ago. It is to put an end to that and this political waiting, if I may use the expression, until there is a change of Government to decide whether to appeal or otherwise. If they do not appeal within the six months' period that is the end of it. I think the House will agree it is a very proper thing. It is unfair that, if an officer feels aggrieved with the decision given, he should wait until the Minister approving the decision is supplanted by somebody else who is possibly of a different political persuasion. It is to put an end to that that the six months' period is there. We want to legalise the whole thing and say that the person has the legal right of appeal and that he has only six months in which to make it.

Paragraph (5) states:

"A local authority may, with the general or particular approval of the appropriate Minister, abolish offices, but in the case of an office held by a person in a permanent capacity, it shall not be abolished save with the consent of that person."

I can visualise, for instance, the curator of a museum saying we wish to abolish the museum; that there is no necessity for it; that it is outmoded and out of date. If the official is a permanent official he will be consulted and will only be removed with his consent. Again, in these days of regional hospitals it may be necessary to abolish particular offices for the purpose of creating a major office. I will deal with Section 17 when we come to it but there is no inconsistency between Section 12 and Section 17.

Is the local authority the manager or the elected members' representatives?

I am certain that Senator Hickey knows much more about the matter than I do. The local authority is defined under the County Management Acts. The local authority is the elected representatives but the county manager has certain functions known as executive functions.

That is what we object to.

The Senator is about 14 years late in his objection. When the Act became law in 1940, I was not a member of the House but the Senator was a very worthy member of it.

The matter does not arise under this section.

The first Management Act was introduced about 1925.

I was then in the kindergarten. When I refer to the local authority I may be referring to the county manager, depending on whether the function is an executive or a reserved function. If I refer to a reserved function, I refer to the local authority representatives, but if I refer to an executive function, then I refer to the city or county manager.

Do you refer to him as a local authority?

If he deals with an executive function. I think the matter will be clarified better when we come to discuss the County Management Bill.

I want to be clear on this Bill. It seems to me that the Minister is satisfied that the county manager is the local authority.

In the appointment of personnel, and the letting of houses, which are executive functions.

And remuneration?

And remuneration.

Without any consultation with the elected representatives?

That is the law as it stands, but I am taking steps to amend that law. In other words, there will be no increases in the remuneration of the permanent personnel of a local authority without the prior consent and sanction of the elected representatives, when the County Management (Amendment) Bill becomes law. As we have got to take one Bill before the other Bill I prefer to take this one before the County Management Bill. Unfortunately, we cannot take both together.

We have had a long discussion on reserved functions. Would the Minister inform the House as to whether Section 12 of this Bill is a reserved function?

Section 12 will be an executive function.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.

I move amendment No. 2:—

To delete paragraphs (m) and (n) lines 47 to 62, inclusive.

The reason I propose the omission of paragraph (m) is that it apparently gives a new power to local authorities to impose short term disciplinary suspensions, not exceeding seven days. This is an extremely complex Bill. I do not pretend to be an expert on it. I am merely looking for clarification. I have been asked to say that this new paragraph enables county managers to impose short term disciplinary suspensions almost at their whim and without right of appeal It gives the power to the manager to suspend the official and it gives the official no right of appeal against the short sentences of suspension. That is giving too many discretionary powers to county managers.

My objection to paragraph (m) is the general objection in principle that I mentioned on the Second Reading to legislation by Order. Under this section, the Minister has power to give directions for the carrying out of the Act. It would be very difficult to interpret these directions owing to the fact that it is not quite clear in the text whether the directions will have the force of law or not. I think, personally, that they will probably not have the force of law. If they have the force of law, then they are giving the Minister power to which we object on general principles for it is the power of legislation by Order. If these directions have not the power of law, then it is very difficult to see the necessity for putting these words into the Bill at all.

The Minister has power to give directions and, if these directions have not the force of law, I do not see why it is necessary to include them in the Bill. I shall give this instance of what I mean. Under the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, local authorities were given powers to grant additional years for the purpose of calculating superannuation. There is a statutory maximum of ten years provided but under this Act the local authority has power to use its discretion in the number of years to be granted. I am informed that in 1951 the Department of Local Government issued a direction to local authorities setting out the number of additional years to be allowed in certain circumstances. That direction had no legal standing but it operated to take from local authorities whatever initiative they had to decide the number of additional years.

If these directions have got legal power and standing it means a further extension of legislation by decree and, if they have not legal power, there is no point in putting them into the Bill at all. I understand that these directions, if they have power of law, will limit the field of action of local authorities and, therefore, I propose that paragraphs (m) and (n) be deleted.

With regard to these amendments, it is my personal opinion that Senator O'Brien ministerprets what would happen if the amendments were accepted. The effect of the acceptance of the amendments would be that local authorities would have no power whatever to suspend an officer, as the powers given to them in that connection under Section 27 of the 1940 Act are being repealed under this Bill. Local authorities had certain disciplinary powers under Section 27 of the 1941 Act but these are now being repealed

I was then in the perhaps unusual that an ordinary pracby this Bill. If I were to accept the amendment as set out, it would leave the local authorities with no powers of suspension whatever. Possibly the Senator did not understand that point.

When the local authority suspends an officer at the moment, it takes months and months before a decision can be given. The offence may be merely a misdemeanour in the eyes of the local authority and I wish to provide for such a misdemeanour being dealt with quickly. Take the question of an employee turning up for work under the influence of intoxicating liquor. If he is suspended under present circumstances, that file may go on for weeks before a decision is given. It is for cases such as that that I want to give local authorities summary jurisdiction to suspend an officer for seven days. I think that is a reasonable attitude to adopt—to suspend him at once and get it over with. I cannot accept the amendment as it stands because if I did, local authorities would then have no power whatever to suspend an officer. I believe that if the House considers the matter, it will see that it is a good thing that the local authority should have some powers of summary jurisdiction and it is only for that purpose that the section has been put in.

With regard to the other point raised by Senator O'Brien, it has been the practice for years for predecessors of mine to issue directions which have absolutely no statutory validity at all. These directions have been issued down through the years and, while some local authorities have acted on them, others have treated them to the respect they deserve and thrown them in the waste paper basket. We want to legalise the position and make some statutory provision for these regulations which have been issued down through the years. There is no question of local government by the Civil Service, because in every instance the Minister must stand over the regulations issued and I think I can speak for my predecessors as well as for myself in that regard. The Custom House has too often been blamed in this matter. It is the Minister's Department and the Minister's responsibility and the Minister must bear that responsibility. It is to legalise these directions and to give them some statutory effect that I have put this provision into the Bill. What I should like to see would be that regulations would be made that would be applicable to all the local authorities and not merely that directions should be given. I want to see regulations made which would apply to the entire country with some legal effect and it is for that reason that I put in the section. The Minister must stand over any regulations made by the Custom House and there will be no such thing as legislation by civil servants.

I have stated in regard to paragraph (n) that I was not quite clear whether these regulations were to have the force of law. I have now got it from the Minister that they will have the force of law and that the object of including them in the Bill is to give them the force of law. A distinction has been drawn between regulations given by the Civil Service and regulations given by the Minister but that is a distinction which is not a very valid one. The Minister has stated that he wishes to legalise the regulations issued under his predecessor. While the Minister can give an assurance on the matter of his own acts he cannot give any assurance for the acts of his successor. If regulations of this kind can be issued, it seems to me to be a very wide extension of the principle of legislation by Order, which I oppose very strongly. The Statutory Orders Committee of the Seanad is constantly investigating matters of this kind. I suggest that further powers of this kind should not be conferred on any Department or any Minister without very strong justification being made by the Minister claiming the powers.

As regards (m), I think I am correct in taking the Minister to agree with me that short term disciplinary suspensions not exceeding seven days are new. The local government code was involved and complicated and for any layman to find his way through it was not very easy. I speak subject to correction, but I believe I am correct in assuming that these are new powers. There again, it seems to me, this is a new disciplinary power given to an executive official which can greatly interfere with the liberty of local officials. I am objecting to it on that ground, and I think there should be a strong case made for the extension of executive powers whether in the hands of the county manager or the Minister himself.

I would like to ask a question, to clarify my own mind on the amendment to paragraph (n). As the Bill stands at present, does the local authority have power to advise the Minister to suspend local government officials?

The local authority actually suspends the official.

It is the county manager or the city manager, as the case may be, not the local authority.

I feel that there is great substance in the points that Senator O'Brien has made and that the Minister might consider them further. There is no doubt that under paragraph (m) it might be possible that a local government employee would be treated on quite a different basis to the manner in which an employee of any private employer could be treated. A private employer could not do the kind of thing that can be done under (m). I fully appreciate that it is very unlikely that such cases will arise, but it is a matter that the Minister should consider further.

As regards (n) it seems to me that the sub-section is extremely wide. The Minister should reconsider it. I can quite see the possibility that under some of his successors things might be done which are certainly not contemplated at present and which might give rise to grave difficulty in the future. I would respectfully suggest that those two paragraphs require some more consideration.

I have some difficulty in understanding these paragraphs. Paragraph (n) says "providing for the supplementing of the regulations by directions (being directions for the purpose of giving effect to the regulations, but neither extending the regulations nor widening their scope..." If they neither extend the regulations nor widen their scope, what are these supplementary regulations going to do? Is it merely to bring regulations into operation? I think the drafting needs further consideration.

Let me deal with paragraph (m) first. There is very little change in the existing law. Let us try to visualise what the law is at the moment. The local authority at the moment has the power to suspend sine die. When they suspend, they must report the matter to the Minister, who either confirms it or otherwise. It takes considerable time. Possibly the aggrieved person does not want the file to go to the Minister at all. It may be a simple misdemeanour. We are giving the local authority under paragraph (m), in the case of a misdemeanour, power to suspend for seven days. That ends the matter at the end of seven days. If the aggrieved person wishes, he may still appeal to the Minister but very often he is most anxious that the facts should never get to the Minister if it is a question of a simple misdemeanour. There is really very little change in the law. So far as a particular official is concerned there is absolutely no change whatever if he wishes to appeal, but if he is quite satisfied with the position at the end of the seven days there is an end to it. Remember it says “not exceeding seven days”; it may be only two days, or a day or half a day. One can visualise an officer turning in in the afternoon, possibly under the influence of drink, and the county manager tells him to go home and suspends him for the afternoon. Would it not be a tragedy if that man had to remain suspended until the Minister investigated the whole facts—as is the law at the moment?

With regard to (n) there is a multiplicity of regulations which are made by the Minister for various local authorities. I could give many examples; for instance, travelling expenses of officials and members of local authorities, where, as the price of petrol increases or decreases, the amount of travelling expenses alters accordingly. It is to govern such cases—simple cases such as that—that the Minister may give effect to his regulations by way of direction and we give the same statutory authority to these directions. I could continue to quote examples. It would be too bad, indeed, if we had to make statutory by means of a section in the Act any change in the payment of expenses every time there was an increase or decrease in the price of petrol. You may say to me that as the law stands, it is all right. It was all right so long as local authorities accepted the directions of the Minister, but local authorities have now learned that these directions have no legal effect whatsoever and some have refused to act on them. This is merely to enable the Minister to see that his regulations are carried out.

I would like to have it more clearly from the Minister whether this is a reserved function or an executive function. That is important in considering the suspension of the person for whom we are providing here and particularly where we are providing for a period of seven days. The Minister attempted to justify (n) by referring to regulations made in relation to such matters as travelling expenses and personal allowances to employees of local authorities. That case should not be sufficient to influence the House to accept this amendment. If we look at Section 19 of the 1941 Act we find that there the Minister has ample powers to make regulations without an opportunity being given for consultation with the local authorities or even provision being made that such regulations should be laid on the Table of this or the other House, to give an opportunity for a review within the specified period if the necessity arises. It is not the local authority that has the power of suspending or imposing any penalties in relation to this section: it is an executive function. Power is given to the Minister to do certain things. It is not a question of the county council or the local authority being given power to implement this particular section. For that reason, particularly in relation to paragraph (m) we should ask the Minister to reconsider the drafting of this.

The Senator will appreciate that any regulations made under the Act must be laid on the Tables of both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Senator opened by asking was it an executive or a reserved function. He answered that himself by saying it was an executive function and I confirm what he said.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 3:—

In line 10, page 8, before the word "absent" to insert the words "on holiday or suspended".

There may be certain occasions when the words "ill, absent or incapacitated" might not be sufficient to cover all eventualities. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to include the words "on holiday or suspended". For instance, a person may be absent but may be on holidays or a person might be incapacitated and may be suspended. Accordingly, I would ask the Minister to consider adding those two words.

I can assure the Senator that I sought legal advice on this matter and that I have been assured that the sub-section provides for the validation of certain acts of a person who is acting for an officer who is ill, absent or incapacitated. I would refer the Senator to Section 19, sub-section (1), paragraph (j) of the 1940 Act where the words "ill, absent, or incapacitated" are also used. I understand that that particular phrase goes back to regulations of 1882 and that it has never given rise to any difficulty whatever. I am advised that the word "absent" can mean "on holidays" and that "incapacitated" includes legally incapacitated which would be suspension. I think that, in these circumstances, the amendment is unnecessary.

If the Minister is satisfied that the words in the sub-section are sufficient I also am satisfied. I should like, however, to point out to the Minister that where a dispensary doctor who occupies a dispensary residence is on holidays, it would be difficult, I think, to appreciate that on an occasion like that the word "absent" would be sufficient.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.

I move amendment No. 4:—

To delete all words after "amended by" in line 29 to the end of the section and substitute "the repeal of sub-section (1), paragraph (f)."

This amendment is on the lines of what I mentioned on the Second Reading of the Bill. At present, the Minister has power to lay down certain types of qualifications for the taking of a post under a local authority or for the retention of that post. Among the qualifications which he is permitted to lay down is the qualification that the holder of a post shall be either, if she is a woman, unmarried or a widow. The effect of this amendment which I am proposing, if it were passed, would be to remove the right to dismiss a woman employee of a local authority from her post on marriage, or to insist, where a post was to be given to a woman, that she be either unmarried or a widow.

My purpose in putting this amendment before the Seanad is to submit the view that married women ought not in any circumstances to lose any of their rights as full citizens of this country upon marriage. It seems to me that in the 20th century it is a generally recognised personal individual right of women, if they be married, to decide whether or not they want to retain a post for which they are qualified, or whether they prefer to resign and give it up in order to devote themselves to the running of their homes. I suggest that, as matters stand at present, a woman may be disqualified for the—I do not know whether one can call it either a misdemeanour or a crime—of marriage, but as things stand at present it seems to me that this is State interference with an individual right or liberty. I believe that married women should have full rights as citizens, although I recognise, as we all do, that many women on marriage would prefer to give up their job, whatever it may be, and to abandon whatever rights they may have in order to turn to domestic duties in their homes. I also recognise that other women may prefer to retain their jobs, at any rate for a time. It seems to me that the right to make that decision ought to be the personal right of the women involved, and not the right of a local authority or of the Minister.

I suggest, in all seriousness, that this may very well in a small way, and perhaps in a bigger way than we recognise, be one of the factors which discourage early marriage in this country. I recognise, of course, that it is a good thing, in the wide generality of cases, for married women with children, particularly during the early years of their marriage, while the children are young, to look after their own home, but should such a woman be compelled by the force of economic circumstances—by the fact that she is going to be dismissed from her job— to do so? Is that not a matter of personal decision on the part of the parent, and who is the State or the Minister to interfere in the making of a decision of that kind?

I think, for example, that we all recognise that in many cases it would be an excellent thing for the home if the man of the house were to spend more of his payroll on things for the house and perhaps less on things for himself. It might be better if some men, to put it very bluntly, spent less on drink and more on the home. What kind of an outcry would there be if the Oireachtas were to try to take power to insist that, for the sake of the home and of the children, men should be prevented from spending their money in whatever way they please? In other words, the individual must have his right, and the woman individual must have her right.

I suggest, furthermore, that there is a precedent to be found in most fields: in business, in the professions, in the sciences and in the universities—precedents for married women of talent and of distinction continuing to fulfil, with the same talent and distinction, the posts which they had before marriage. I think that from the community point of view that is an excellent thing—that they should have that right. It is a right that is recognised in most civilised countries to-day, and in particular, I think it would be a good thing for this country—one could think of several professions which might be greatly improved by it—were married women not to be dismissed automatically on marriage. One can think notably of the teaching profession where married women primary teachers who are fully qualified are replaced all too often by untrained teachers.

I can recall the case of the Countess Markievicz, a very distinguished woman—I need not pay any tribute to her because we all have the same admiration for her qualities, her courage and her service to the country. In her case, I do not think anyone would have suggested that the question should have been put to her before she served with the Citizen Army in the College of Surgeons in 1916 that a woman's place was in the home. I suggest, further, that throughout the national struggle in this country Irishwomen, married and unmarried, have been allowed to serve on an equal footing, as the Countess Markievicz served, with their male colleagues.

I would say, furthermore, in order to bring the point up to date, that I rather doubt if there is any political Party in this country to-day which refuses the services of married women at election time, for the purpose of addressing envelopes, canvassing, checking registers and doing all the little odd jobs which all the political Parties are so glad to get done by voluntary service. I doubt very much whether the women who do active service for the political Parties in that way are ever told that they would be better advised to go back to their homes. Therefore, I suggest that, in maintaining this principle that the woman employee must be "sacked" on marriage, we are behaving, in the light of our practice in other fields, in a somewhat hypocritical way. By reason of this process of the dismissing of a qualified woman simply because she is married, and whether or not she wants to continue in her post, I suggest that there is necessarily a lowering of the standards established in certain positions; and for all these reasons I would urge the Seanad to pass the amendment and leave it to the married woman herself to have her own personal free right to decide, to choose for herself whether or not she will continue in her employment, for some time or permanently after marriage.

The Senator appears to forget the fact that I am trying to modify the law. I am trying to assist married women. The Senator is inclined to forget that, as the law stands at the moment, a married woman who is in employment may not seek a transfer to employment under another local authority. I am trying to give that class of married women a little more scope to better themselves, if I may use the expression. That is the amendment which I propose in the Bill.

With regard to the broad principle which the Senator propounds, may I quote for him the Constitution of this country? Article 41 (2º) lays down:—

"The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the family in its constitution and authority ..."

It goes further, then, in 2 (1) and says:—

"In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved."

The woman's place is her home. That has been the policy of the State down through the years. It is the policy of the State in so far as the teaching profession is concerned and it is the policy of the State in so far as the Civil Service is concerned. Exceptions have never been allowed. As I am sure the Senator and the House appreciate once the married status of a woman changes, when she becomes a widow, the State has always been anxious to reconsider the position, and, if at all possible, to re-employ her, be it in the service of a local authority, the Civil Service or the teaching profession; but while she remains married, we believe, with the Constitution, that a married woman's place is her home, to look after the care and upbringing of her family, and we go so far under Civil Service regulations and the regulations appropriate to the teaching profession to lay down that, even in the case of a childless married woman, she is not capable of being employed. However, I am sure the Senator will appreciate that I am trying to help married women who are at present in the employment of a local authority and who sought and obtained that employment prior to this marriage bar being enforced. I am giving them the opportunity now, if they are in employment down the country, of applying for similar employment in the City of Dublin, which is something they could not do. I am assisting them and I ask the House to assist me in assisting them.

I recognise at once, I should like to say, that the purpose of the amendment as put forward by the Minister is to help certain married women who are at present not affected by this marriage bar, despite what the Minister has told us about the universality of its application and its being enshrined indelibly in the Constitution. I recognise that he is trying to help, but I suggest that he is not going far enough and that this section, as it is at present before us, becomes unnecessary if we remove the marriage bar. The Minister has told us of the Constitution's desire to protect the family, and he has told us that a woman's place is in the home. I am afraid I regard it as an individual right on the part of the woman herself to decide whether in certain circumstances her place is in the home or whether she should continue to serve in other fields.

I do not accept the suggestion made by the Minister on the universality of this practice, and I have already pointed out that the Minister's amendment, in fact, relates to women who are married and not affected by this marriage bar. The Minister mentioned the teaching profession, but there are grades in the teaching profession where it does not apply, notably, secondary teaching and, I think, university teaching. He has said that it is the duty of a woman to look after her home and children, and he has even said that it is the duty of the childless married woman to stay at home. I suggest with respect that that is an outmoded view, and a view which is going to deprive the country of a great deal of talent. I suggest that the real principle enshrined in the Constitution and deriving from the proclamation of the Republic is that men and women shall be equal before the law and shall have equal rights. For that reason, it seems to me that this ministerial amendment, while its intention is to be helpful, would become unnecessary if, in fact, quite simply, we removed this marriage bar.

Without expressing a personal opinion on what the Senator has said, let me say that it is completely contrary to public policy in this country to employ married women in local services, the Civil Service or the teaching profession, but we recognise that, before it became public policy, certain women had procured employment in these various services and that it would have been unfair that these women should automatically cease to hold the positions which they held prior to the marriage bar becoming operative. We permitted them to remain in that employment and I now by this Bill am trying to better their position, but I am not cutting across the public policy of this Government and of Governments down through the years. As I have said, I do not wish to express a personal opinion on the matter and all I can tell the Senator and the House is that it is contrary to public policy and I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment.

Is there a ban on a woman taking her seat in the Seanad or Dáil, unless she happens to be either unmarried or a widow?

I should imagine that is a matter for the people who elected her and not for me.

Surely if it is contrary to public policy, it is a consideration that must be taken into account.

The real difficulty about the amendment is this: the Minister is proposing to amend the law so as to help certain married women who are already in employment, and Senator Skeffington wishes to bring in an amendment to alter a particular principle which applies to the employment of married women in local government service and in the Civil Service. We could have an interesting discussion on that matter. There is a very important principle involved. What the Senator is endeavouring to do is to bring a side-wind to this particular Local Government Bill, and to get the Seanad to agree that certain things should be done in regard to employees of local authorities. If it were done in the case of local authorities, it should be done also in the case of the Civil Service. In other words, we are discussing something which I think should not be decided on this Bill. I found it very interesting to hear Senator Skeffington state that he was a State socialist. We find him to-day objecting to State interference and advocating suppressing the rights of individuals. That is common form.

The Minister has told us that this is contrary to public policy. I am sure he would agree that it is for the two Houses of the Oireachtas to create and establish, and if necessary to modify, public policy. He himself has referred to the fact that this was not always contrary to public policy. Therefore, public policy has changed in this respect within living memory because his aim is to help people—married women— who were employed before the marriage bar was brought in. Therefore, what he now avers is public policy was not always public policy. I personally would very much favour changing any aspect of public policy which seemed to me to be bad. I do not say that any individual has the right to lay down a law. I think that the Houses of the Oireachtas have the right to change public policy. There is nothing immutable about it. Senator Hayes has suggested that because it is not possible to do everything to-day in relation to removing the marriage ban, —because we cannot deal with the whole Civil Service—that, therefore, it is better to do nothing; because we cannot do everything, let us do nothing ! I do not share that view. I believe that one step forward is more valuable than any amount of marking time, however loudly and rhythmically. The mere fact that we cannot to-day change the marriage bar in relation to some women employees who might be applying for such posts, does not prevent us from setting an example which I hope would, as Senator Hayes has suggested, be later followed by the Civil Service, and so on. He has also suggested, of course, that for a socialist to object to State interference is something representing a contradiction of terms. I would be very happy to give Senator Hayes a long and detailed lecture on the theory of socialism, which, I suggest to him, so far from increasing State interference, does, in fact, liberate a number of people in a number of ways, increasing their personal, social and economic liberty which is, in fact, at present contravened by many things, not only by the marriage bar but by the whole economic circumstances in which we live in our present society. Therefore, while I share with him that view, I hope that he shares with me the view that any step we can take now to decrease State interference with the rights of the individual we should take.

May I make a suggestion? It seems to me that we have a kind of head on collision between two approaches to the same matter. While I sympathise a good deal with Senator Skeffington, I do not think it is the best way to introduce a general principle of this kind. It seems to me it would be better for the House if a motion were put down for debate on the general principle. We will get nowhere unless we approach it in that light.

I am not in sympathy with that view, I am afraid. I would in fact like to press the amendment.

It is a very direct way of dealing with whatever you have in mind.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I am not pressing for a division, as I appear to be alone.

Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.

I move amendment No. 5:—

In line 50, before the word "that", to insert the words "subject to the consent of the holder of such office".

I think I have already drawn the attention of the House and the Minister to this section, and Section 12. Under Section 12 we have provision made for the abolition of an office of this kind which would not take place except with the consent of the holder of the office. In Section 17 we have no reference or no provision made for any reference to the holder of the office. I would like to have clarification from the Minister as to the reasons for the different wording in the sections.

The amendment cuts completely across the section. If we accept for the moment that this was accepted and became law it would mean, no matter what the circumstances, that neither the Minister nor the local authority could retire officers who had become redundant as the result of their duties having lapsed or having been transferred to another local authority. Let us, say, take the case of a mental hospital. I can visualise a mental hospital in a particular county. We wish to have a regional mental hospital to serve three, four or five counties. The local authority endeavours to enter into agreement with the local R.M.S. to ask him to retire or be transferred to the new regional hospital. He refuses to go. If the amendment is accepted we must get him to stay despite the fact that there may be no mental patients for treatment. It is cases such as that that we wish to provide for so that if the holder of the office becomes redundant or if his office is abolished the manager may compel the holder of the office to retire.

Who is to decide that it is in the public interest? Is it the local authority concerned or is it the Minister?

The local authority will initiate, the Minister will sanction or otherwise.

If we cast our minds back to Section 24 of the 1941 Act we will find:—

"(1) Where the appropriate Minister is satisfied"——

and so on. Under Section 17 we give the Minister very much wider powers than he has had under Section 24 of the 1941 Act. That is a section which Section 17 proposes to amend, despite the fact that this Bill in general was put before us as a Bill giving more power to the local authorities and as a Bill taking away from the Custom House, as the Minister refers to it, the powers of direction and making of regulations.

This is one of the sections where we give very wide powers to the Minister in regard to deciding whether or not the matter of the removal of a particular public officer, possibly with long service, is in the public interest without there being any regard for the person himself or without making any provision for further employment.

Section 12 gives, first of all, the parties an opportunity of coming together and entering into an agreement. Imagine an urban area with a town clerk and, further, imagine that the urban area becomes de-urbanised. What are we going to do with the town clerk? He has got to remain on and we have got to pay him. Imagine a gasworks switching over to electric light. What are we going to do with the gas manager? Unless he is prepared to enter into an agreement with the local authority, we shall have a gas manager without a gas works and, in the case of the deurbanised area, we shall have a town clerk. It is for cases such as these that we are trying to legislate. It is for cases such as these that I ask the House to accept this section.

I am afraid that the Minister is asking very much more from us than is contained in his simple statement about the town clerk. We might have a gas manager without any gas but you would have the gas anyhow. Section 12 gives power for the creation and abolition of offices.

By agreement.

By agreement and with the consent of the person. If the matter is as simple as the Minister says why were there not added in Section 12 the words "in the public interest"? There are far wider powers given in Section 17.

Is the amendment being pressed?

I would like to hear the Minister on it.

There is very little I can add. Section 12 gives the people an opportunity of coming together and settling their differences but where they do not come together, and where there is a deadlock, they may appeal to the Minister to abolish the appointment for the simple reason that it would be ridiculous to have a local authority employing a town clerk where there is no urban council. It would be ridiculous to employ a gas manager when we have no gasworks. Senator Hawkins said we would have the gas anyhow but we would have the laugh on some person. I think that, on reconsideration, the Senator will see my point of view. Section 12 gives these parties an opportunity of coming together and settling their differences but, when we find that they will neither lead nor drive, it is time for some person to step in and the only person who will have that authority will be the Minister.

Which is going to be the operative section? In Section 12 we are making provision for the coming together of the parties. That cannot be done without the consent of the persons concerned. We have gone to the trouble of putting in this Bill a section that we cannot abolish a particular office, without the consent of the present occupant of that office. We then passed five sections and we introduced in the fifth section a new clause. We say that the Minister may abolish any office in the public interest, despite the fact that we have already incorporated in the Bill a provision for consultation. Which is going to be the operative section?

The Minister can say that if there is no agreement under Section 12 he has Section 17. In this case it is the Minister who decides what is in the public interest. There is no reference to the occupant of the position despite the fact that we have made provision for consultation and the getting of consent in an earlier section. That seems to me to be contradictory.

Both sections will be operative. Section 12 enables the parties to come together. It may be in the interests of the individual himself to retire. Both parties may come together. They may fail to do so. The employee may not treat with the local authority. Would it not be unfair to give the local authority power to abolish the office right off the reel? I say that when the local authority and the employee cannot come together and it is in the public interest—those are the operative words—then the Minister should step in. I think the Senator will agree that some person must step in. It would be unfair to have an employer step in and abolish the office. The Minister only does it when there is failure to agree between the parties concerned and when it is in the public interest.

If all that Section 17 provides is the simple matter the Minister says, I am not prepared to accept it. I think it would be more fair to the person concerned to know definitely of the provision in the Bill. If he seeks advice in future he will be told that under Section 12 of the 1955 Act the post he now occupies cannot be abolished except with his consent, but then we have this matter of the public interest. What is the public interest? I think this matter is rather serious and I would like the Minister to look into it between this and the next stage.

I certainly shall look into the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 6:—

To delete paragraph (II), lines 52 to 54, inclusive.

I raised these points on the Second Stage of the Bill. I think they are very important points. As far as I know, they introduce new principles into local government which were not there before. These sections give power to move officials from one local authority area to another. Under Section 24 of the Act of 1941 it is possible for an officer of a local authority to resign in the public interest.

This section provides that compensation must be paid to the officer who is so required to resign. There is only one exception to this clause and that is where the local authority offers to appoint him to another office with salary and emoluments not less than those of the one he at present occupies. Under this section a person can be transferred from one office to another and that means that he can be transferred from Dublin to Donegal. He forfeits all rights to compensation if that position is offered to him and he refuses to take it. As I read this section it deprives a person of his pension if he is offered a position under any local authority, not merely the one by which he is already employed, but by any other and he refuses to accept it. If I am wrong, I hope the Minister will explain the position, but I cannot see why a person should be refused his pension if he refuses to go from Dublin to Donegal. It would involve him in uprooting his whole family, leaving his house and causing him inconvenience in the education of his children. In this instance the powers of a local authority would be exercised very much to the detriment of their own officials and would enable people to be uprooted and shifted throughout the country in a manner which they would not desire.

The second amendment is very much of the same nature. Paragraph 4 deals with the transfer of officers inside the area of the same local authority. I do not think that the transfer of an officer from one local authority to another is the same as the offer of an appointment to an officer of a local authority in another area of that local authority. Under this section, it would be possible to move a person from one part of the same county to another, and it would also be possible to move him from an urban to a rural district. That might mean that he might be required to travel a long distance to and from his work and his whole family might be inconvenienced as regards education and everything else. I read this section as authorising a transfer of that kind and, therefore, I suggest that both these sections are objectionable, the first because it authorises the transfer of an official from one part of the country to another and the second because it authorises the transfer of an official from one part of a local authority area to another.

I think the Senator has miscontrued the section. It is meant to deal with the transfer of functions from one local authority to another and we have very many instances of that no further away than Dublin. The Dublin City Council has taken over the administration of the road taxation for the entire county and, if there was no agreement between the two bodies, we might have had the officials in Parnell Square sitting up there and twiddling their fingers ever since that change was made.

Again, take the case of the medical hospital. I can visualise a central medical hospital being set up in the Midlands to cater for the whole area from Galway to Dublin. Suppose that a young resident medical superintendent had just been appointed to one of the smaller hospitals in that area. If I accepted this amendment, I would have no option but to retire him on a very small pension while, if the section is permitted to stand, I will be able to confirm the appointment of that young resident medical superintendent in the regional medical hospital in the Midlands.

We have now reached the stage where we have all over this country a number of sanatoria. I certainly hope that we will be able to close down a number of these after some time owing to the reduction in T.B., but I would be very sorry if we had to pension off the young resident medical superintendents in charge of these sanatoria. I would like to be in a position to be able to transfer them to some other centre or regional sanatorium which may take the place of all the smaller sanatoria all over the country. It is for that purpose and that purpose only, when the functions of one local authority are being transferred to another, that I require the section. I can assure the House and the Senator that it is only in circumstances such as I have mentioned that it will be implemented. It is not for the purpose of victimising officials of a local authority or for the purpose of transferring an officer from one local authority to another except where the functions of a local authority have been transferred. It is for that purpose that I require this section.

The Minister has given us the bright side of the picture, but is Senator O'Brien's darker side guarded against under the original Act or not? Suppose we had an unsympathetic and uncharitable Minister, would he have the power to act as Senator O'Brien has suggested?

It is only when the function an officer is performing is being transferred that he would be transferred. I cannot imagine an officer being transferred from Donegal to Cork.

That is stated in the original Act. Can we have an assurance as regards this Bill?

Yes, I can give that assurance.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That Section 18 stand part of the Bill."

Section 18 provides that Section 27 of the Act of 1941 be repealed. Section 27 of the Act of 1941 provides for the suspension of an officer of a local authority by that local authority. In the very few words inscribed in Section 18, we are taking from the local authority the power of suspension of any of its employees who in the opinion of that local authority may have failed to have carried out his duties. We are now in the position that, despite all we have said up to this, under this section the only person who can now suspend an official of a local authority is the Minister. We are doing that by the deletion from Section 27 of the words "such local authority" where they occur. We should make sure that the local authority have some function in a very important matter of this kind. It could pass the notice of the House, because of the simple wording of Section 18, that there was not so much entailed in it in so far as the relations between the council and the employees are concerned.

Under the amendment of Section 27 of the Local Government Act of 1941, contained in this section, local authorities will no longer suspend officers under Section 27 but in accordance with regulations under paragraph (m) of Section 14 of this particular Bill. The powers of the appropriate Minister to suspend officers under Section 27 of the 1941 Act are not affected at all by the proposed amendment. The Senator will appreciate that at least three Ministers are concerned in these matters and the powers which I now ask will not affect in any way the powers given under Section 27 of the 1941 Act. I suggest to the House that the section is a reasonable one and I would ask the House to accept it.

We are considering a Bill that is expected to give to the local authorities additional powers, yet in a section of this kind, a very short section, we are taking from them one of the very important functions of any employer, that is, the authority to suspend one of their employees if, in their opinion, there is good and sufficient reason for it. Section 27 is quite definite: "Whenever in respect of the holder of an office under a local authority there is, in the opinion of such local authority or of the appropriate Minister.——" Section 18 proposes to delete the words "such local authority", that is, no longer will the local authority have a say in a suspension, no matter for what cause, of any of their employees. We are now giving the complete power to the Minister to do so.

If the Senator reads paragraph (m) of Section 14 he will see it says as follows:—

"Providing for the imposition by local authorities on holders of suspensions from performance of duties (including short term disciplinary suspensions, not exceeding seven days), the non-payment of remuneration during the continuance of the suspensions and, upon the termination thereof, the forfeiture (in whole or in part), payment or disposal otherwise of remuneration which would, but for the suspensions, have been paid during the periods thereof."

One can imagine the case of a man under suspension, who clears out of the country. There is certain remuneration due to him and this gives a method of disposal of it—I think a very reasonable and efficient method of disposal. We are not in any way affecting Section 27 of the 1941 Act.

The Senator has said to me that I propose to give back to local authorities more power than they have. I do, but not under this Bill. This Bill, I am advised, was instituted and drafted by the Minister preceding me, a Minister of the Senator's Party. It is not my Bill; I have to try to justify it. It was his Bill and I suggest I have amended it as best I can, but this particular amendment is not one of the amendments. I have had more criticism of the original Bill from the Senator's Party than from anyone else. However, I have amended the Bill as best I could and I now present it to the House. I am surprised the Senator did not have an opportunity of discussing it on another occasion.

This Bill, I am informed, was originally intended for the purpose of codification of the local government law. Merely for that purpose it was originally introduced, but if the Senator would compare the Bill as it now stands and as it was when originally introduced, he will appreciate the amount of good that I have done by the amendments which I have brought into it and which have been welcomed by all sides in the House below.

There is very little use in the Minister coming along and saying: "This is my predecessor's Bill".

"Was", I said.

Well, "was my predecessor's Bill, but, of course, I have amended it as best I can since then and it is now a much more worthy document that I present to you", when he is presented with a question. The question I asked was why are we making this provision in Section 18, which seems a very simple section and which one would be inclined to pass over without giving it any examination, because it simply says that Section 27 of the 1941 Act is hereby amended by the deletion of the words "local authority"? The Minister, in place of explaining to the House what these words mean, goes back to refer to Section 14. We have spent the greater part of this day going from Section 12 to Section 17 and being referred back from one section to another. When that has failed to convince us or when there is no convincing argument in the reference to other sections of the Bill, we are referred to a Bill which is not before the House at all. I hold that in this section we are taking from the local authority power that they now have, of suspending an employee of theirs for any just cause and, of course, for reinstatement likewise when they consider that such reinstatement should be done—by the deletion in this particular section of the words "such local authority" where the words may occur in Section 27 of the 1941 Act.

Might I refer again, to clarify the position, to Section 27 of the Local Government Act which provides, inter alia, that the appropriate Minister or the local authority can suspend an officer but only the appropriate Minister may reinstate him? Is that quite clear—that only the Minister may reinstate him? Under this sub-section (m) the method of reinstatement will be governed by regulations to be made by the Minister. We are not cutting across or taking away from any local authority a power which they had got: we are merely providing for the making of regulations governing reinstatement or otherwise. As the law stands at the moment, the local authority or the Minister may suspend but only the Minister may reinstate. We are leaving that as it stands, but (m) will give the Minister power to reinstate by a method of regulation. The regulation will govern general cases. Of course, if there are individual cases they will be dealt with in the ordinary way under the section in the 1941 Act.

The Minister has been referring back continually to Section 14 and paragraph (m) but the point at issue with me at the moment is that I hold that if we pass this section to-night we are taking from the local authority a function they have now, that is, the right to suspend any employee of theirs for any just cause.

You mean the representatives of the local authority?

The representatives of the local authority. It should have been a reserved function. I do not wish to be traversing up and down from Sections 7 to 14 continuously; my only desire is to elicit from the Minister a simple answer to a simple question. If I am not putting it clearly enough or if the Minister does not understand, I would like to be so informed. The question I am asking the Minister to answer is, is it not a fact that we are removing from the local authority under Section 18 of this Bill the powers that they have of suspending an official, an employee of theirs?

We are definitely removing it from one section—but we are putting it into another. That is quite clear. I have explained to the Senator and the House that it is for the purpose of codification that this Bill has been introduced. We are taking it out of one section but we are putting it into another, and the regulations which will be made will give the local authority any power which they have to-day. I am giving that assurance to the House.

That is in the County Management Bill?

No, in this Bill.

If that is the case what use is there in our going from one section to another and from one Bill to another Bill? If what the Minister says is so, what is the need for Section 18 of this Bill?

For the purposes of codification.

For the purpose of depriving the local authorities of the powers which they now have.

I am now giving the House my word that I am not depriving them of any powers which they have. Any powers which are taken from them by this section will be given to them by another section.

This is legislation by reference.

I am completely against legislation by reference. I am absolutely against it, and I am surprised that it has been permitted in this House all down through the years. So far as I am concerned, I shall never introduce legislation by reference, but I am advised that it is essential in this case for the purposes of codification. I am advised of that, as my predecessor was advised of it, and we both accepted the legal advice that was tendered to us that this was necessary for the purposes of codification. I shall never initiate legislation by reference.

The Minister will find, as long as he is there, that he will accept advice.

I do not do as my predecessors did.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.

I move amendment No. 8:—

Before paragraph (i) to insert the following:—

(i) "With the consent of the local authorities concerned such consent being a reserved function" shall be inserted before "by Order fix".

What is meant by a reserved function is that it is to be a function of the representatives of the local authorities. What is proposed in Section 19 is the amendment of Section 29 of the Act of 1941. Section 29 of that Act provided:—

"The appropriate Minister may by Order fix the amount and nature of the remuneration of holders of specified major offices and such Order shall have the force of law in accordance with its terms in relation to such offices and holders thereof and, if and in so far as it conflicts with any regulation made under this part of this Act, shall override such regulation."

We are amending that section by extending it to other groups of employees of local authorities. In doing so, we are overlooking entirely the local authorities. What I am asking the Minister is that, in matters of this kind, the representatives of the local authorities should be consulted. They are the representatives of the people and will have to shoulder the responsibility of providing the money to pay the staffs that are referred to in this Bill. I think there is no justification for giving further powers to the Minister to deal with matters of this kind without any reference whatever to the representatives of the local authorities.

The Senator is right in pointing out that, as the law stands at present, in the case of major offices the appropriate Minister has the power to fix the remuneration without any reference whatever to a local authority. That is the law as it stands. I do not agree with it, and as a result I am amending it under the County Management Bill, but under the County Management Bill local authorities will have the power to veto increases in remuneration for permanent officials.

But here we are dealing with the case where new offices have been created. Take, for example, that it was necessary to appoint a civil defence officer to deal with atomic weapons. That would be a new office to be created, and the Minister would have the right to fix the remuneration for it. He has the right to do that at the moment for individual major offices but, instead of doing it for individual local authorities, we want to be able to fix a standard that will govern the whole country for these particular offices. The Minister can make an Order fixing the remuneration for the entire country for these particular offices. If I were to accept the Senator's amendment, the mere refusal to give its consent by one local authority to the fixing of that remuneration would have the effect of nullifying the entire section as well as the regulation made by me fixing such remuneration for the rest of the country. The intention of the section is to cover new offices so that there will be a standard remuneration fixed for the entire country for any new offices which may be created.

By the Minister?

The fixing of the remuneration will be by the Minister, but the creation of the office will be a different matter.

The Minister is doing this without any consultation with the elected representatives?

Yes, under a completely different Bill. This merely amends the law as it stands. The Senator will appreciate, when we come to deal with the other Bill, that I am taking my hand out of the purse of the local authorities as much as I possibly can, and that I am proposing to allow them to distribute their own funds in whatever way they wish, but this deals with the fixing of a remuneration for new offices for the entire country. There has to be a general scale and someone must fix it. I say that the Minister should fix it for the entire country so as not to have different scales applying in different areas. This will make things simpler for everyone. The acceptance of the amendment would cut across the purpose of the entire section and would nullify it.

This section may make things easier from the point of view of the Minister, but not from the point of view of the ratepayers or of the people responsible for paying the remuneration to the holders of these major offices. As far as I can ascertain, those occupying major offices are county managers, county secretaries, county engineers and county medical officers of health. There is a tremendous number of such officials all over the country. If the remuneration of all these officials is to be standardised by the Minister without taking notice of the fact that the rates in some counties are very much higher than in others, that the standard of living in certain counties is higher than it is in others because the people are living on better land, and that road workers and agricultural labourers are paid a much less wage in some counties than in others, then it seems to me unfair that the Minister should standardise the remuneration. It would be unfair if he were to decide that the county manager in a small county should have the same remuneration as the county manager in a very large county where the responsibilities are so much greater.

We know, of course, that the City Manager in Dublin has a much bigger salary than the ordinary county manager because of the fact that you must attract a very good man for such a position. He carries tremendous responsibility. I understand that the cost of administration in Dublin runs to between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000 a year. It seems to me that if the Minister is going to standardise these salaries for the whole country there will be the incentive for principal officials in the larger counties to seek positions in the smaller counties because their responsibilities will be so much lighter in the small counties.

This is a section which will be very rarely used, just as the section in the old Act was very rarely used. As a matter of fact, I know of only one case in which it was used and used, in my opinion, wrongly. It was a case in which a dispensary was advertised and there was a local boycott. The Minister for Health stepped in, and, without consulting the local authority and against their wishes, fixed a very high salary for that dispensary area for the purpose of breaking the boycott. There was no outcry then from the Opposition Benches about the Minister stepping in and fixing this unprecedented salary for a dispensary doctor.

Senators know just as well as I know that in the smaller counties there was swopping and changing around. A medical officer was merely a bird of passage, waiting to get out of a particular county and into a better county. This will merely apply in the case of new posts such as that which I mentioned a few moments ago which may be created. The Minister at present has power to fix a salary for individuals and I am merely asking power here to fix a salary in general for any new post which may be created. I think it is not unreasonable. I can assure the House that, so far as I am concerned, it will be used very rarely indeed and I hope the Minister for Health will never have occasion to use it in the disgraceful manner in which the old section was used in the past.

The Minister has been more clear in presenting this section than he has been in presenting any of the other sections we have come to so far, so we are making some little progress. I join with Senator Walsh in the case he has put to the Minister. but there is another side to this question—that the Minister may fix a standard scale of salary to be accepted by all the local authorities throughout the country, which scale, for many of the local authorities, may be rather high. We had cases in the past in which the fixing of remuneration by the Minister or by the Department led to posts not being filled for a considerable time, because, in the view of the organisations catering for the particular group, such as engineers or doctors, the salaries were not attractive enough. Whether it is a matter of the salary fixed being too high or too low, as might be held by these organisations, I think the people to decide this question of remuneration are the people who are the employers and who are faced with the task of imposing the burden on the people of making the money available.

The Minister has given an assurance that the section will be used only in relation to new appointments. I do not know exactly what he has in mind. We have as many categories of appointments as we possibly can have at the moment, and, unless the Minister has in mind the creation of some other new office, the section would not be required at all.

I was somewhat surprised by the Minister's reference to a dispute in a particular dispensary district. Many years ago, in 1925, when a very important body was set up by the authority of the then Parliament—the Local Appointments Commission, to which we will probably be referring later on—that body was not accepted very freely throughout the country. The old system was there, but many of us who saw that it was necessary to have such a body, if the young people were to have a fair chance of securing the employment to which their ability entitled them, supported the decisions made by that body at the time. We supported these decisions against much opposition which came mainly from the very people who implemented the legislation setting up that authority.

A similar position to that which arose in County Leitrim—we might as well be frank now that the Minister has referred to it—arose in my own county of Galway. I was very closely associated with it at the time, a fact of which I have always been very proud, because the very authority of the Local Appointments Commission was challenged at that time. Had the opposition to the appointment made by that body succeeded, there would have been no further Local Appointments Commission appointments in this country. On both occasions, the same steps were taken—the Minister took steps to ensure that the person appointed on the advice of the Local Appointments Commission, as being the best possible person for the post, was enabled to take up the position by making up for the loss of any private practice of which he might be deprived because of the opposition to his coming there. The Minister for Local Government, in maintaining that authority and ensuring that persons appointed by it would find it possible to take up the positions, was quite justified and deserved full credit from the House and from all who stand for decency and honesty in public life. The Minister was ill-advised to refer to the matter this evening.

I did not take exception at all to the appointment made. What I did take exception to was the increased salary given to a dispensary doctor, without affording the other applicants an opportunity of applying for that dispensary. Here we have a dispensary offered at a salary of £300. A number of eminent men will not apply for it because the salary is merely £300, but, when an individual is appointed, his salary is doubled. Is that fair to the other competitors for the position? I am not finding fault with the method of appointment, but I am finding fault with the step of increasing the salary and the time at which it was increased.

Does the Minister suggest that the office of dispensary doctor is a major office under the section?

That is not the interpretation of it that I have.

We have much more respect for them than that, Senator, although I notice that you have not in Donegal.

Why then does the Minister not fix the remuneration of the Donegal dispensary doctor?

We will leave that to yourselves. It was the predecessor of the Minister for Health who did it, but you repudiated it and refused to implement his decision. You were unaware of the fact that it was the predecessor of the Minister for Health who had fixed it.

Does the Minister suggest that a local authority should have no control over the remuneration paid by it?

I am making no such suggestion; I am merely stating facts. It was the predecessor of the Minister for Health who fixed it and you refused to implement it—particularly the Fianna Fáil section of the council.

There is a situation in Cork City which is affected by this fixing of salaries in the Department. We in Cork have agreed to pay an engineer x pounds—I forget how much —but the Department will not agree to it. The result is that, for two years, we have had no engineer—just a temporary person from week to week. Can the Minister tell me why that is so? We are agreeable to pay the salary suggested by the engineers' association.

But not under this section.

Many people think the Minister is getting away from this section so I might as well join with them. I think now is the proper time for the Minister to answer that question because we in Cork are very tired of waiting for a decision.

We will wait to see what the new county council does.

We would like a decision before we leave the corporation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.

I move amendment No. 9:—

In sub-section (3), line 51, to add after the word "section" the words "but every such direction shall be given by Order under his seal".

This is a very small amendment. Every direction should be issued in a formal way, and that is why I suggest that "every such direction shall be given by Order under his seal".

I can assure the House that no direction is given in a very light way by the Department. For any direction given the Minister is responsible. I think that amendment would not achieve the end which the Senator desires. The fact that the direction is given by Order under seal does not of itself mean anything. I can assure the House that no such direction would be given without consulting the appropriate Minister, who may be the Minister for Health, or the Minister for Social Welfare.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That the section stand part of the Bill."

Section 20 provides that:—

"(1) the power of a local authority under Section 10 of the Act of 1941 to assign remuneration to an officer shall not be exercised except in accordance with such one or more of the following as may be appropriate from time to time:—..."

Section 10 of the 1941 Act, which this Section 20 amends, provides that:—

"(a) every local authority may appoint such officers and employ such servants as are necessary for the performance of the functions for the time being of such local authority;

(b) every officer appointed or servant employed by a local authority shall perform such duties and be paid such remuneration as such local authority may from time to time assign to him."

I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in Section 10 of the 1941 Act a provision is made for the local authority to employ the staffs essential for the good performance of its work and to pay them remuneration in accordance with the work. Now we come to Section 20 of the Bill, which provides:—

"(1) the power of a local authority under Section 10 of the Act of 1941 to assign remuneration to an officer shall not be exercised except in accordance with such one or more of the following as may be appropriate from time to time:—..."

Therefore we take from the local authority under this section the powers that they had under Section 10 of the 1941 Act. The power

"shall not be exercised except in accordance with such one or more of the following as may be appropriate from time to time:—

(a) any Order made by the appropriate Minister under Section 29 of the Act of 1941,

(b) any regulation made by the appropriate Minister under paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act of 1941.

(c) any direction given by the appropriate Minister regarding the considerations that should govern levels of remuneration of officers generally,

(d) any direction given by the appropriate Minister regarding the considerations that should govern levels of remuneration of officers of a specified class, description or grade, the officer being in that class, description or grade,

(e) the sanction of the appropriate Minister."

In every case we are passing on to the Minister the authority to fix remuneration for all employees of local authorities, and depriving them of the powers they have under Section 10 of the 1941 Act. I think that, having regard to the fact that the Bill put before us is making better provision for giving to local authorities powers which they have not had for some time, we should oppose this section.

The only new principle introduced under this section is that the appropriate Minister can dispense local authorities from the necessity of seeking sanction to increases. Supposing that the Minister says particular remuneration shall be between £7 and £10 per week, you need not seek the Minister's sanction so long as you keep within the scale laid down. It is not necessary to send it back for sanction. For instance, the Minister makes a regulation that a particular tradesman's rate of pay will not exceed such and such a sum. So long as it does not exceed the trade union rates, there is no necessity to come back to the Minister. I think that is a reasonable thing, and I think it is going to save the local authority all this trouble of sending it back to the Minister for sanction. It is giving back to them a certain amount of discretion. It is going to make for a better method, and it is going to save time, correspondence and a lot of unpleasantness. Local authorities know well in advance the limit to which they may go in fixing the rate of remuneration. They also know the minimum. There is no necessity to seek the Minister's sanction so long as they fix the particular remuneration within that scale.

The whole principle involved under this section is that we are taking from the local authority the power that they now exercise in fixing the remuneration. What about an officer of a local authority who is aggrieved?

Provision is made that where an officer of a local authority is aggrieved he may apply to the Minister to have his grievance righted. Might I refer the Deputy to the section which has been repealed. not the one that the Deputy read out? It is Section 42 of the 1946 Act. Perhaps I mistook the Senator. Perhaps he did say the 1946 Act. My predecessors have for a good many years been issuing directions on the very same lines as I propose issuing directions under this section, without any legal authority at all. There will be no further directions. There will be regulations made which will be laid before both Houses, and which every Deputy and Senator will know. In fact, some of the documents which went out by way of directions will not be secret documents. I am going to regularise and legalise the practice which had existed down through the years. I am taking nothing away from the local authority. I am giving them something. They need not come to me for sanctioning the remuneration of some of their tradesmen or local employees.

If this Bill is passed and the County Management Bill is passed subsequently, which of the two will the local authority take direction from?

The other one.

I am afraid we cannot have a discussion on that.

We have been referring to the County Management Bill.

There would be no difficulty whatsoever. A little pamphlet will be issued for nothing which will explain the position.

A provision is made under this Bill empowering the Minister to make regulations and sign Orders. I cannot understand why, when a member of the House asks for an explanation of a particular section, the Minister should devote so much time to a criticism of the actions of the Department in the past, the officials of local authorities, and the past actions of Ministers in regard to these matters, when powers were conferred on them by this or the other House.

They were not. That is just the point.

If we propose to request every local authority to employ an attorney-general to examine every Order and direction sent to them to ascertain whether it is made in accordance with the authority given to the Minister by both Houses of the Oireachtas, we would probably overcome the difficulty.

They might save money and be better instructed than they are.

There is a Committee of this House which devotes a lot of time to this matter. We have knowledge of all these things happening in the past and at the present time. If the other members of this House were members of this Committee they would soon realise that, while there may have been an excuse during the emergency years for legislating by regulations and Orders, the Orders have not lessened in any way in recent years. It is quite understandable that a Minister and his Department would be anxious to legislate by regulations and Orders rather than go before each House of the Oireachtas. However, I want to get back to Section 20.

Section 20 takes from the local authority the power they had of fixing the remuneration of their staffs. It hands over that power to the Minister. The Minister, sitting in his office in Dublin, is going to decide by regulations sent to local authorities. We understand from previous statements made by the Minister that his idea of the proper approach to these matters would be to fix a standard rate for the various classes of employees and tell the local authorities that as long as they paid this rate of remuneration they need not ask for sanction. If for one reason or another, having regard to the circumstances of the county, they suggested that any change should be made they could not do so because the Minister is taking the powers they had from them by Section 10 of this Bill.

I do not object to the Senator misquoting fact, but I do object to him misquoting law. I would refer the Senator to Section 42 of the Local Government Act, 1946, and I would advise him to listen. It says:—

"In this section, the word ‘employment' shall be construed as including, in addition to the employment of a servant of a local authority, an office other than a major office."

These are the conditions:—

"A local authority shall not—

(a) pay remuneration in respect of an employment held by any person immediately before the 26th day of August, 1942, unless they pay the remuneration either at a rate not greater than the rate at which they paid remuneration in respect of the employment immediately before that date or at a higher rate for the time being sanctioned by the appropriate Minister."

There are four sub-sections each one of which ends with the same five words "sanctioned by the appropriate Minister".

Was the local authority in 1946 taken as being the city manager or the county manager?

That is the defect of the whole thing.

Senator Hawkins thinks that we are taking from the local authority something they never had. When the Senator purports to quote law, I hope he will quote it correctly. I do not mind him misquoting facts but I do object to his misquoting of the law.

I would expect, when the Minister replies, he would reply as the political head in charge of the Bill. I did quote the law correctly. I would refer the Minister to the section under consideration. The section under consideration is Section 20 of the 1955 Local Government Bill. There is no reference in the whole of Section 20 to the Act of 1946. Therefore, it does not propose to amend or extend.

Would the Senator look at the Second Schedule to the Bill? There is no use misquoting law. The Deputy will see that the Schedule repeals the section.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 21 and 22, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Question proposed: "That Section 23 stand part of the Bill."

I want to make an observation on Section 23. The section, as I read it, seeks to improve the position of the servants of the local authorities in the matter of superannuation. It seeks to extend their period of service. I think that is desirable. I would like if the Minister would look into this section with a view to seeing if it would be possible to do a little more for those people. I am not referring to those higher officers of the local authorities. I am referring to the people who are classed as established servants of the local authority. Under the Superannuation Act, 1948, those people were given, on the passing of the Act, a period of six months within which to have their names entered on the register of established servants. A large number of them availed of that power.

That would really be a matter for discussion under the Superannuation Bill.

There will be a Superannuation Bill?

I only raised the matter as the Superannuation Act is referred to in the section but if there is legislation coming I will wait.

There will be legislation.

I would like to welcome the Minister's assurance. Could he give us any idea as to how soon such a Superannuation Bill will be forthcoming?

Might I pose the question how soon will I get this one?

Could we have an assurance that it is likely to come before us before the summer recess?

I introduced this present Bill in October and I have only got this far with it yet. The County Management Bill is before the Dáil and the Dáil has only reached half of the amendments although the Bill has been before the House since the end of January or the beginning of February. The Senator will appreciate that it is very difficult to give a date. I can assure the Senator that the Superannuation Bill will be introduced at the earliest possible moment. I will even go further and say that I will ask permission from Dáil Éireann to introduce the Bill before the summer recess.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.

I move amendment No. 12:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) Where as the result of a declaration by the appropriate Minister under Section 23 of the Act of 1941 the age limit for any particular office is less than 70 years the appropriate Minister may on the recommendation of the appropriate local authority extend the age limit to an age not exceeding 70 years.

As a member of a number of local authorities, I have been rather perturbed of late by the amount of money we have to provide for officials who retire at the age of 65.

One of the subsidiary bodies of the Clonmel Corporation is the gas company, and that body is tending to become insolvent by the number of pensioners which it has to leave off at the age of 65. That has become a great burden on the finances of that industry. In all European countries there has been a considerable increase in the expectancy of life. A commission sat recently in Britain, I cannot remember the name of it, but it made very definite recommendations that people over the retiring age should be encouraged to remain on in productive service for many years longer than they are allowed to do here. This trend will develop in this country, as it has done in neighbouring countries, and I believe that the day is not far distant when it will be felt in all the institutions of the State and in some other institutions such as commerce, banking, etc.

I know it is difficult for the officials of the Department and people who are engaged in service of that sort to suggest an increase in the retiring age to the Minister, but it is well that, from time to time, some people should be prepared to bring these matters to the attention of the powers that be. I want to ask the Minister to consider the question of allowing the local authorities to encourage officials to remain on in their service until the age of 70 if the local authority finds that the officer can give useful service.

There is another matter which it would be right to consider in this connection. That is that our marriage rate is far later than it is in many European countries. Owing to that fact many people are compelled to retire at the age of 65 when their burdens are greatest. In many cases grave hardship is inflicted on these people by being asked to retire at that age. Many competent and able officials will probably be asked to retire if the Minister does not try to do what I ask. I would ask him to have the Department of Local Government see what is the effect of this early retiring age on urban councils, corporations and other local authorities throughout the country and to see its effect on the finances and rates of all the towns and cities in Ireland. I would ask the Minister also to remember that whether they have to retire or not, their cost must still be borne by the community and, as time goes on, their numbers will increase until the burden will become such that it will be impossible to meet it.

The Senator has rightly referred to the late marriage rate, but in God's name what will happen if we put this amendment into the Bill? Surely we shall encourage an earlier marriage rate by retiring these old gentlemen when they reach the age of 65 and giving promotion to the younger men? There certainly is a late marriage rate in the country and I am afraid that one of the reasons for that late marriage rate is the fact that we keep these men on. I think we would be assisting in keeping the marriage age up by putting in this amendment.

There is another aspect of the matter. The age of 65 is the one which applies throughout the entire service and the amendment would give more favourable treatment to some individuals than to others. There would be a stultifying and blocking of promotion to juniors in the various services if these officers were allowed to remain until they are compelled, by physical debility, to retire.

My amendment simply asks the appropriate Minister, with the agreement of the appropriate local authority, to extend the age limit.

You will make it more favourable for some individuals than for others.

All my reading of late has borne in on me the increased burden that will have to be met by the State due to the number of pensioners and I think it is time that some people should say these things. Facts are facts and they have to be approached whether we like it or not. The expectancy of life to-day is very much greater than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Recently it was assessed in Britain at 79 years for women and 72 for men. The same tendency will arise here and sooner or later that matter will have to be faced up to.

I would be very sorry to see this amendment withdrawn. I agree with what Senator Burke has said. I do not agree that the general retirement age is 65, and I know that the State refuses to give old age pensions under the age of 70. In Britain they have a retiring age of 65, but they give the old age pension at the age of 65. We do not. We have an interim period of five years. I would suggest that officers of local authorities who have shown their worth, and who are still entirely competent to continue working between the ages of 65 and 70, should be allowed to continue to do so with the consent of the Minister. I would suggest that this is a praiseworthy amendment and I should like to see it go through.

Acceptance of the amendment would be a complete change of policy. The amendment covers more Departments and Ministries than that of Local Government. I think the suggestion made by Senator Stanford earlier would be a much more effective one. If we wish to amend the policy, let a motion be put down and let the whole matter be discussed.

I wonder is the retiring age of 65 as general as has been stated? I understand that some senior members of the judiciary are allowed to go on beyond 65, and I know that there are quite a number of professorships occupied by men of up to 70 and beyond.

This is a double-headed weapon and I understand it operates in the Army to some extent. There is a great deal of discontent among the younger officers.

It would be wrong for the Department of Local Government to set a headline in this matter, which is one which concerns all the branches of the service.

I understand that it is not necessary for a dispensary doctor to retire until the age of 70.

They must retire at 65. The Senator will appreciate that that is a matter for another Minister. I am not in a position definitely to say. The Minister for Health deals with that and I cannot say whether he has made an age limit Order or not. I know it was the law that they had to retire at a certain age.

The Minister is aware there are dispensary doctors over 75 at the moment?

Some of those dispensary doctors are merely part time

It is a major office.

It may be, but they may be only part time. I am not aware of any doctor in office over 75 but I am not in a position to deny that. This is a debatable point but could not be debated on an amendment to a section like this.

In conclusion, my idea in putting down the amendment was to give more power to the local authority. I think this is a very important thing in the life of any community. History would suggest that many of the people who have given the greatest contribution to civilisation have certainly been over 65. Drawing an arbitrary line is very difficult and the suggestion in my amendment was to allow a local authority, when they had an official of very much above average competence, to employ him for the public good for a longer period and that the Minister could give sanction to their wishes if he wanted to do so. The course of the last two wars would probably have been different but for the employment of two men over 70—one a statesman and the other a general. I would hate to think that a principle was brought in here that was unchangeable, that even when talent was available it could not be employed because the man was over 70 years of age.

The Minister has suggested to us to take the course of putting down a motion to discuss this at a later date when we would be supplied with more facts and figures and arguments in favour of the case. I hope that the Minister would opt to be the Minister who would come here and sit to listen and reply to this debate if he will afford us this opportunity.

May I protest against the suggestion that it would be impossible for the Department of Local Government to take a lead?

I did not say impossible, but undesirable.

Undesirable, then. I suggest with respect that it would be eminently desirable that some Ministers should be prepared to take a lead, and show the way to better things to their colleagues.

This matter is wider than the section referred to by Senator Burke. Take the mass of unskilled workers who are not even adequately provided for at 65. I agree with the Minister that it is a bigger and wider problem than can be debated here on an amendment to a Bill of this kind— and I think it should not be discussed on terms of money altogether.

In the final analysis, did not some Labour leader say that prosperity was indivisible? I know that in the local gasworks we had to retire several men. I would hate to think that we had to retire so many men that maybe people now working there would have their employment put in jeopardy because we had to retire those men. With the increasing of the age we could arrive at such a position. It has been suggested we should discuss this in a fuller way here on some motion that would afford everyone an opportunity of putting the case for and against. I believe there will be a time in the near future when we will have to change the policy on this matter.

And on many other things.

Someone said a long time ago that consistency was the impossibility of genius. We should not take it that everything has to be as it is at the moment and not as we would like to have it.

On this question of putting a motion on the general principle before we make any change, there is the obvious objection that we would never get the motion accepted. As soon as it is proposed as a general principle, someone will say he agrees with it in nine cases out of ten, but that as he is being asked to accept the principle for ten out of ten he cannot vote for it although he has an immense amount of sympathy for the motion. In this particular case, we can accept the principle.

The average span of life is three score and ten. Let us put them into retirement for some years before they pass on.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 24 agreed to.
Sections 25 and 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Question proposed: "That Section 27 stand part of the Bill."

My interpretation of the wording of paragraph (a) is that it will be mandatory on a local authority after a period of three months to ask the commissioners to recommend a person for appointment to office. I can visualise cases where the appointee may be ill or have met with a serious accident or be otherwise incapacitated. Also, there may be an agreement between two local authorities where the person to be appointed was at the time a member of one local authority and was being appointed by the commissioners to another local authority and where the first one desired he should remain to the end of the financial year. That may occur in the case of a vocational teacher or some such person. It would be much more desirable not to have it mandatory, to leave it discretionary on the part of the local authority to request the commissioners to make that appointment. If the Minister is prepared to accept that amendment, I would ask him to consider changing the three months to two months, that the local authority could ask the person to take up the appointment within two months, but in that case he need not take it up within that time if the local authority is agreeable.

In the Senator's Second Reading speech on the Bill I understood him to say that he held that the section should be permissive. Is that right? The section is permissive, it is optional; but I sincerely hope that local authorities will not construe it in that way. I hope they will make it mandatory in many cases. May I give the example of Arranmore Island, which has not had a permanent dispensary doctor for the past ten years? Every doctor refrains from going in for a period of 12 months until he gets an appointment elsewhere, with the result that they have no permanently resident doctor there for a good many years. I hope this section will amend that position. To satisfy Senator Walsh, I may say that the section is permissive.

Is the Minister suggesting that the word "shall" is permissive rather than the word "may".

The whole thing is for the decision of the council.

The Minister referred to the question of dispensary doctors on Arranmore Island. The Minister is aware that a doctor has been acting there for the past 18 months in a temporary capacity. Possible, there was no application made to the Appointments Commissioners for the appointment of a full-time man.

I saw the position advertised often enough.

If the Minister is satisfied that it is permissive, then I am satisfied.

I would draw the Senator's attention to sub-section (1) of Section 27, which provides:—

"Section 6 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the addition of the following sub-sections:—

‘(5) Sub-section (4) of this section shall have effect subject to the proviso that where the local authority specify a period (not less than three months) within which the person who is recommended by the commissioners or who is thought proper by the local authority to be appointed (as the case may be) is to take up duty and notify him of the period so specified, the local authority shall not appoint him unless he takes up duty within that period.' "

That is permissive so far as the local authority is concerned.

I take it that the direction is given before the appointment is made. The Appointments Commissioners request the appointee to take up the position within three months of appointment because of the fact that the local authority has requested them to do so, and the local authority decides the question prior to the appointment being made.

Once a person is notified that he has been appointed to a position it is mandatory on that person to take up the position within three months. Otherwise the local authority may request the Appointments Commissioners to make a further appointment.

Yes. The Senator wants me to compel the local authority. I am leaving it optional with the local authority and in that way I am giving them a bit of power. The Senator will not have that.

I say that the word "may" would give the local authority permission, but not the word "shall". Take, for example, the case of a county engineer. He is asked to take up an appointment within three months. The local authority of the county in which he is serving may wish him to remain until the end of the year. The other local authority may be willing to agree to that, but once he has been appointed to the other county the local authority there would have no option but to see that he took up the appointment with them.

I would refer the Senator to sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, which provides:—

"On receiving from the commissioners their recommendation under this section, the local authority shall appoint to the said office the person recommended by the commissioners or, where more than one person is so recommended such one of the persons so recommended as they shall think proper."

The operative word there is "shall". There is no option and they shall make the appointment. What we are doing here is we are giving the local authority some little discretion in the matter.

I would direct the attention of the House to paragraph (b) of Section 27 of this Bill which provides:—

"if the local authority does not, within three months after the expiration of the said period, request the commissioners to recommend to them a person for appointment to the office, the Minister may on behalf of the local authority request the commissioners to recommend to the local authority a person for appointment to the office,".

Therefore, I submit that if a person does not take up an appointment within three months, the Minister is being empowered to make a request to the Appointments Commissioners on behalf of the local authority where it failed to make the request itself. The question arises, who is to give the necessary information to the Minister that some dispensary doctor or engineer has not taken up the position to which he was appointed? Where a local authority does not exercise this power, then the Minister can step in.

May I point out that paragraph (b) of Section 27 of this Bill is taken word for word from sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926? Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of that Act provides:—

"On receiving such request as aforesaid from the local authority or the Minister (as the case may be) the commissioners shall select in accordance with this Act and recommend to the local authority one person for appointment to the said office or shall, if they so think proper, select in accordance with this Act and recommend to the local authority two or more persons for such appointment."

The Senator has asked, who will notify the Minister? We shall follow precedent. I do not know who has been notifying him during all the years but we shall follow precedent.

We are dealing here with a position that, in many cases, has been created by the fact that a person appointed to a position was not, for one reason or another, prepared to take it up. I have known a dispensary district in my own county where the complaint has been that a doctor was prepared to take an appointment for a short period, as a stepping-off ground for some better appointment. That is one of the things that is going to flow from the activities of the Appointments Commissioners. If the local authority had the responsibility of appointing doctors to Arranmore and Inishbofin Islands, it is probable that they would remain there for the remainder of their lives. Under this Bill, if a doctor is appointed to Ballydehob dispensary and is expected to take up duty not later than, say, 26th November, and if he does not arrive on that date, who is going to notify the Minister? Is the Minister then going to make application to the Appointments Commissioners?

It is the duty of the local authority to do that.,

If the local authority is not anxious to do it, is it then only that the Minister steps in?

I am afraid I do do not know.

I am afraid there are many who do not know.

It has been going on since 1926.

But now we are trying to rectify a position that has arisen because of people not having taken up positions to which they were appointed.

Will the Senator not agree that it is a good thing to give the local authority an option in the matter?

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 13, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 28 agreed to.
Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
SECTION 29.
Question proposed: "That Section 29 stand part of the Bill."

I oppose this section, not that I am in any way against the principle which I think the Minister has in mind, namely, to obviate the necessity for calling people over and over again to an interview in connection with these local posts. While it is desirable to bring about an amendment of the law in that regard, we must make sure at the same time that, in doing so, we do not open the gate to abuses, and to hardships as well. One thing which struck me was that, in spite of the fact that the section can be regarded as a revolutionary one, we have got very little explanation of it so far, and I should like the Minister, when dealing with the points I am making, to give us a full statement as to how, in his view, this section will operate, because so far as I see there can be many pitfalls.

For instance, there is a reference in the following section to panels, with which we will deal later on, but anybody looking at the marginal note to Section 29 will rub his eyes, because that marginal note reads: "Dispensing with competitive examination". Before we dispense with these competitive examinations, we must make sure that we will not find ourselves in a more dangerous position than we were in before. For instance, what kind of panels are we going to have? How long will these panels be in existence? If somebody whose name is on the panel is called to fill a post and does not find it convenient to do so, because the post may not suit him, what will his position be afterwards? We have so many things to consider that I should like to get a statement from the Minister as to how he thinks the section will operate.

There is very little revolutionary in the section. First of all, I might explain that the competitive examination means a written examination. As the law stands at the moment in all appointments made by the Local Appointments Commissioners the first thing they do is to request the Minister to dispense with written examinations, and all appointments are made on an oral interview but the commissioners must seek the concurrence of the Minister in each and every case. It has never yet been known to have been refused. We want to wipe out this procedure whereby the commissioners must go to the Minister every time they wish to make an appointment, and seek concurrence in wiping out the competitive examination, in other words, the written examination. It is merely to do something, to legalise something in general which has been done in individual cases in the past. I am only dealing with Section 29 and the amendment opposing the section. That is all this does: it expedites appointments, it saves all this correspondence between the Minister and the commission which has been gone into in each individual case. I would like the House to determine the meaning of written competition or rather competitive examination when they are considering the section. Competitive examination means written examination when you accept the fact that down through the years each successive Minister has concurred in the wiping out of the written competition. This is merely to make a general rule of it. There will be no necessity for it in the future. In other words, in future, appointments will be made on the qualifications, plus the oral interview. There is nothing revolutionary in it.

I would refer the Minister to the explanatory memorandum. It refers to Section 9 of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926. When the Local Appointments Commissioners obtain the Minister's consent to the selection of a person for appointment to office, otherwise than by competitive examination which is taken to mean a written examination, in practice all selections are made by interview board, so that in reality there is no use at all in talking about written examinations. We are discussing interviews and nothing else, because in practice, even according to the explanatory memorandum it is a qualification which is taken to mean, and must be taken to mean, just an interview. The difficulty then is that if these interviews are dispensed with——

There is no intention to dispense with interviews, absolutely none.

That puts a different complexion on it.

This, I take it, is to cover mainly cases of appointments where, say, academic qualifications would be stipulated, as for instance, a veterinary surgeon. He would have to be qualified. A medical officer would have to have his diploma from the proper authority, and it is obvious there would be no need to hold an examination in the ordinary sense of the word for such persons as these. I expect that is the type of person covered by this.

It has been the procedure that such people were not expected to undergo the ordinary written examinations.

And the Minister concurred in the dispensing with the written examination.

Might I ask the Minister whether it is the intention on the whole to dispense with this competitive examination in the case of university graduates? There is quite a number of appointments in the Civil Service where for university graduates a degree is stipulated as a qualification. So far I think such candidates must undergo a written examination. Is it the intention to dispense with that examination in regard to appointments? I quite understand that the Minister is in a difficulty because this has to do with local appointments.

Would the Senator look at the first of the lines of the section which is explanatory?

I use the case of people going for the Civil Service. There are certain positions in local authorities where there might be a position for a——

A medical officer.

Not medical officers. Their diplomas are of a different kind. There may be town clerkships, and so on, where certain qualifications are said to be essential; for instance a leaving certificate or university degree from a professional examining body, where it is the intention of the local authority to dispense with written examinations in the case of these people, taking the thing by and large.

It will be left to the commissioners who will have the option. They will know.

I want to find out whether it is the intention to dispense with that.

In practice I understand that will be the intention.

I understood that the intention behind the section was to put an end to that system by which candidates were called over and over again for interview, even candidates living across the Channel.

It is Section 29 with which we are dealing, not Section 30. Section 30 is the section to which you are referring.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 30.

I move amendment No. 14:—

In sub-section (2) to delete all words after "arrange" in line 19 down to and including "persons" in line 22 and substitute the following words "for the setting up of panels of persons whose qualifications are known to the commissioners by reason of their having been already up for interview."

In view of the statement which we have got from the Minister I find myself in a difficult position as regards this amendment which I have put down because the Minister has now told us that he has no intention whatever to interfere with the interview system.

I have no intention.

If that is so, what has the Minister in mind at all, because I understood that the intention was to establish a position by which people would be called for interview, and their record taken down for future reference, so that they need not be called again; in other words, that their names would be classified on the proper panel.

That is correct.

If my interpretation of it is correct, I want to make sure, by putting forward this amendment, that nobody will ever be put on a panel unless he has been before the Appointments Commission.

They will not be put on a panel unless they have been before the Appointments Commission.

I did not quite understand from the section itself that that point was safeguarded.

It is only by means of the interview that they will get on the panel at all.

I am not very happy about this section. In regard to this panel, take the case of the secretary of a county council who happens to die suddenly in any particular county. The accountant in that particular county would, naturally, be competent to deal with the duties of the secretary. He will be familiar with the county and with the circumstances obtaining in it on account of his association with the secretary throughout the years. It could happen that a secretary would be appointed from the panel, whereas the accountant, even if he applied for the position, would have no chance of getting it. The same thing could happen in regard to a dispensary doctor.

It could happen to-day as the law stands.

If a dispensary doctor died in a very good dispensary area you would have several other doctors in the county who would naturally like to be promoted.

We are not doing away with the powers of transfer.

On the very point raised by Senator Ruane, it is quite possible that a person whose name would be first on the panel would be called upon later on to fill a certain post which would not suit him at all.

He need not take it.

He need not take it. I am afraid his position would be more or less prejudiced. What would be his position at all?

His position would not be prejudiced in the least.

Would his name be still left on the panel?

And at the head of the list?

Will there be a new interview?

No, not necessarily.

We would want to be very careful in regard to this matter. We are enacting a section that was never before in any Local Government Act. Before enacting it, we would want to see fairly clearly for ourselves how the section is going to operate. If I am an applicant for a certain post through the Local Appointments Commissioners and I fail to get it, somebody else gets it. My name is put on the panel first because of the marks I secured. If at a later date another post of the same kind becomes vacant in a different part of the country and I do not want to go for it and I am called upon by the Appointments Commissioners to take that post and I do not take it, will my name be still on the panel in the same position as it was before?

Yes. As far as I know there is no reason why the commissioners should change.

Might I put it to the Minister that the position is rather different in this country for various reasons? Some of the best brains in this country have to leave it. Many of them often want to get back to Ireland. Tragically enough, they never get back. In regard to this panel let us suppose the commissioners decide to hold a commission to select men in regard to the appointment of a district medical officer of health. A panel of a dozen names, say, is drawn up. I understand that as subsequent vacancies arise in dispensary districts the commissioners would then take the name from the panel and appoint the person so named forthwith. Does not that mean that the service is not necessarily getting the best man available for each appointment at the time? Does it not mean from the point of view of the professional and technical man concerned that a man may be available for appointment who may be vastly superior to the man promoted from the panel, but because an interview is not being held he is not able to get the post?

Might I explain the position? There has been a considerable amount of criticism about the delay in regard to vacancies. We all know the amount of time and money that is spent by people appearing before the Local Appointments Commissioners. Some of them appear nine or ten times before the commissioners and they pay a fee each time. They travel at considerable expense and a considerable amount of time is wasted on the filling of the appointment. The theory at the back of the section is that when a vacancy occurs applications are invited for it. There may be a dozen applicants for one position. They are placed in order of merit on a panel. The commissioners, first of all, may make regulations with the consent of the appropriate Minister governing the period which the panel may last. It may last six months, 12 months, or two years. Personally, I think that six months would be a reasonable period. If a vacancy occurs within the six months period, then those in the order of priority on the panel will be offered positions if they apply for them. Once the period in which the panel will be in existence expires, then a new panel will be set up. That will save time and money and in my opinion it will save a considerable amount of criticism.

With regard to the question of a vacancy for dispensary doctors, you may have 20 or 30 applicants. Not only do they apply for that dispensary but for five or six others, at the same time paying substantial fees on each occasion. If those men knew that the one interview would do, say, for the next 12 vacancies they would be much more satisfied and content.

What about all the young men who would come along in the next six months?

When a vacancy occurs in Arklow, say, for a dispensary doctor, not only will people apply for the Arklow vacancy but also for the other vacancies which may occur in the six months. That will bring into the field for the position advertised originally people who would not dream of applying.

With regard to the point raised by Senator Ruane, there will be nothing in this section to prevent an accountant applying for a county secretaryship. As a matter of fact he will be in the glorious position that if he wants the secretaryship of his own county he need not wait for a vacancy to occur at all. He can apply for the next vacancy, get his name on the panel, and wait for the period when he can fill a vacancy in his turn.

Somebody raised the question of a doctor in a dispensary district being debarred from transferring to another dispensary district. He is not debarred. Provided he is in a dispensary for a period of not less than one year the local authority has power to transfer a doctor to another district. The section will not interfere with that in any way.

In this section we have merely endeavoured to satisfy a certain amount of criticism we have got both in this House, in the Dáil and all over the country about the delay in filling appointments through the Local Appointments Commission. We are trying to expedite these appointments. That is the only reason we have had for this section.

Will the Minister be able to indicate how long the panel is to be effective?

The commissioners will make regulations all of which will be subject to the sanction of the Minister. You will often have at least three Ministers concerned, that is Health, Social Welfare and Local Government. It will be, I presume, a matter for each Minister to decide in conjunction with the Local Appointments Commission how long a particular panel would last. I think myself that in certain cases like medical officers the period should be six months. Where you have the appointment of a county manager it might be a very good idea to let the panel run for two years. We appoint county managers in this country only once every couple of years. But we might have a number of appointments where six months ought to be long enough. That would be a matter for regulations made by the commissioners with the sanction of the Minister.

We ought to be clear. If a panel is to last only for six months or even for 12 months it will tend to become a perfect nuisance, whereas if it is to exist for two years obviously you are going to run into the danger of depriving a good man of a chance of getting the position.

Am I not correct in saying that the Local Appointments Commissioners, like the Civil Service Commissioners, have power to make regulations governing their procedure for filling these posts? If they get this extra power under this section there is nothing to prevent them from advertising every post and having a panel as well. They need not necessarily appoint people from the panel.

Regarding the people about whom Senator ffrench-O'Carroll spoke, a new man may apply and the commissioners may look at their panel and say: "There is a better man on the panel." They may put him on the panel in some other position, not necessarily giving him a job. If an outstanding person applies better than anybody on the panel I understand that there is nothing in this section to prevent the Local Appointments Commission from appointing him.

That is correct.

Might I advert to another point? The Senator says that people with brains leave this country and never get back. I think that is not so. During the first ten years of this State I was chairman of the Civil Service Commission and my experience was that a great many people came back. I have seen on the paper over and over again where Dr. Patrick O'Connor in Middlesex was appointed to a dispensary somewhere or other. You often see where doctors with Irish names and Irish degrees with English addresses have come back. So far as this system is concerned I have heard the criticism over and over again that people are deprived of the opportunity of applying and coming up for interview. This would enable the commissioners to add to their present scheme, whatever it may be, the method of having a panel for a period limited as they might in their own experience think fit. I think that would be an improvement from the point of view of the applicants.

Do I understand Professor Hayes to say that the commissioners will advertise the post?

That is the point. The position is that they do not have to advertise the posts. That is the whole point in the section.

I wanted the opinion of the House and I do not appear to have got an amendment on it other than the amendment in the name of Senator Kissane.

Does Professor Hayes not agree with me, and he has a lot more experience than I have, that, in fact, a lot of the best brains are lost to this country in professional and technical life? However, that is something we need not go into now. Whatever we may say about getting jobs or not getting them in this country, the Appointments Commission, with all its defects, is the best thing we have. There is no doubt about it.

That is true.

Particularly when so many of our really good people are outside this country we should have one thing definite—that there should be a public advertisement for every post.

So there will.

With new applicants entitled to be registered?

I may tell you I have been approached by a number of Senator ffrench-O'Carroll's profession who have requested this section. This panel system is not a new one. We have had it in the Civil Service. It has worked admirably. We have it in the E.S.B. and in C.I.E. We have never yet heard any complaint about it. I have been approached many times by engineers and by doctors who tell me that in trying to get back to this country they have applied to the Local Appointments Commissioners six, seven, eight or nine times. They have had to pay their travelling expenses, say, from Middlesex or Aberdeen, in order to appear before the Local Appointments Commissioners. Finally they say that they will never get an appointment and they stop away and we lose them. A particular job might not induce them to come back, but if you put a man's name on the panel once in six months or two years you are helping. We have been requested by a lot of absentee medical men. Sometimes they tell me that they do not hear of vacancies.

They do not.

If their name are on the panel a vacancy will be brought to their notice. They may be offered a position if they have priority on the panel. A number of our young engineers go abroad and are most anxious to come back here. The same thing applies to them. They would be very glad to have their names on a panel as a safeguard.

Vacancies occur frequently not only for medical people but for, say, storekeepers and so on. If you create a panel and appoint from that panel, as I understand it from the Minister, for the next six months or two years, when vacancies happen in the meantime, a point arises which I think nobody has made yet. If the vacancy is in Galway, a number of people will deservedly apply for that vacancy and the panel is created. Supposing that in six months' time you have a vacancy in Cork, what I am anxious to know is will that vacancy be filled from the panel of people who applied for Galway?

Yes, or it may not.

That is exactly the trouble, to my mind.

If there is a new applicant better than those on the panel——

How are you going to know that he is better?

The commissioners will decide.

I say that in justice the vacancy in Cork must be advertised again. Unless there is something put into this section to compel the commissioners to advertise every vacancy they will retain the panel. If you do that you are doing an injustice to the applicants and enabling a favoured few to get on the panel.

Were there not injustices before the panel was created? I remember some time ago in the South when doctors were appointed to various positions very serious complaints were made. The public have to be considered as well as the applicants for the posts.

I take it that when the Appointments Commissioners make an appointment they have to take into consideration the question of suitability—suitability for rural administration in the case of a person with no rural experience, who has been brought up with a city or urban bias. In the case that Senator Ruane has mentioned, of an accountant who acts temporarily as a county secretary, he may not be interested in any other county but that where the secretary has died; and as he is acting in a temporary capacity, he may prove suitable. If the section is passed as it is, the next person on the panel would be appointed, to the exclusion of the person interested in that particular county.

Could I make a final appeal to the Minister to reconsider this? I suggest that a lot of dissatisfaction occurs in this country over appointments because they are made without being advertised. In all professions there are appointments made, so to speak, behind closed doors, where there is no public advertisement, and there is a great deal of resentment about it. The Minister says, very rightly, that a lot of professional and technical men protest that they have gone before the Appointments Commissioners and have gone to a lot of expense and so on, and have not got an appointment. That is perfectly natural, but let the Minister contrast that with what the position would be under the panel, if the panel lasts for two years. Men outside this country who are well qualified and have suitable experience may be waiting an opportunity to get back and every time an appointment is made they may be told: "That is one from the panel". After a couple of years, is that something which is right—"that is one from the panel"? He would hear that again and again.

There is one point that has been overlooked. The Minister seems to think the panel would be of great advantage to us. I do not think so, because professional men have to work all the time to earn their living like everyone else and if a doctor, an engineer or an architect applies for a post and does not get it and goes on the panel I am quite sure that in at least 50 per cent. of the cases of the names of the men who remain on the panel, when they are offered posts that subsequently become available they will be otherwise employed and, as they are otherwise employed, they will in a number of cases not be prepared to change the appointment. It may be an offer of appointment in a town that does not suit them or they may have got a better appointment abroad. I cannot see how a panel is going to be a tremendous advantage. It is quite wrong to assume that if you interview a dozen people and take one and put the other 11 on the panel you are going to have even seven or eight available for other appointments as they arise in the next six or 12 months. I ask the Minister again to stick to the best form of appointment that we have in this country, that is, a public advertisement and open competition for every post that is available.

With regard to the point raised by Senator O'Sullivan, in setting up the panel it is not the intention to set up a panel for occasional vacancies such as he mentions. In thinking over this section and drafting it, what we thought of was dispensary doctors and assistant engineers. Those were the two we really thought of. As it stands at the moment, one could practically say that what is occurring is a panel system. Every time there is a vacancy for an engineer, there are generally six or seven vacancies on the same day and all the applicants apply for all the vacancies at the same time in the hope of getting one or other of them.

But they know what they are applying for.

They do, definitely. I am anxious to meet Senators on this. I have an open mind on most of these things, but I have been pressed so much by professional people to bring in this section that unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment. However, I would be prepared to consult with the Appointments Commissioners and put before them the various suggestions which have been made here by the House—I must say most constructive suggestions indeed—and see if I can bring in any amendment on Report. Bear in mind, however, that I am not thinking of county surgeons. I am merely thinking of the dispensary doctor who wants to get into a dispensary and does not care where it is as long as he can do his year there and wait for a transfer. I am thinking of unfortunate men who are spending a considerable amount of money in travelling expenses and fees and I am also thinking of the assistant engineer. Those are the only two classes. I have not thought of county managers, to be honest, but of two classes particularly.

Why not mention those two?

That is what it might be possible to arrange between now and Report, if the Senators would be satisfied with that.

Or otherwise advertise every position.

That is the position at the moment—advertising every position.

Yes, but you would have the panel at the same time.

Would the Senator be in favour of retaining the panel for other positions than those two, dispensary doctors and assistant engineers?

And advertise those positions also and get more new people on the panel.

If the House would be agreeable that I should take the matter up between now and Report with the commissioners, I should be pleased to do so.

I appreciate what the Minister has said. I would like to bring to notice another class I am particularly interested in as a member of a county committee of agriculture. We appoint poultry instructresses and instructors in agriculture. While awaiting appointment it is necessary to make a temporary appointment and that means that the person seeking the position has in many cases to make a canvass of the entire county. I am making the case perhaps in favour of the panel for these particular cases.

The panel would help very much there.

It would help, as they would be involved in a considerable amount of expense in securing that temporary appointment; whereas if they could get on the panel after qualifying, they would avoid that.

That is the reason why I introduced the section.

People who have not been able to make a successful canvass would be out of employment for some years.

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Yes, in view of the Minister's statement that he is going to look into the question again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 30 agreed to.
Sections 31 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 35.

I move amendment No. 15:—

To add at the end of sub-section (3) "together with an additional fine, not exceeding £5 for each day on which the offence is continued."

As the road may be closed for more than one day, for two or three days, and as it would be an offence to obstruct or interfere with anything on it, I would ask the Minister to consider making it a continuing offence—as in the next section, Section 36, where it is a continuing offence and there is a fine not exceeding £5 with an additional £1 for each day on which the offence is continued. As the section stands, when the offence has been committed no further fines can be imposed, even if it extends over a period of days.

In the law as it stands at the moment there is no question of a continuing offence at all. Secondary roads are closed now by Section 29 of the Local Government Act of 1925. It contains no provision whatsoever in regard to an offence or penalties. The sub-section has been introduced primarily to deal with people who interfere with the holding of a road race. The events such as we envisage do not last more than a day. I think the House is aware of cases where we had an intervention. The obstruction, in the case of events such as these, does not last longer than a day. In view of that, I do not think we should go to the trouble of making the offence a continuing offence.

This only applies to the holding of road races?

Or to bowling down in the County Cork.

The Minister could not stop that.

Does the Minister think he could take power to stop what is causing a great deal of anxiety in rural Ireland—that is the conduct of people who camp on our public highways?

Not under the section.

I appreciate that the local authority may, according to the section, grant permission for such period and subject to such condition as they think fit. Therefore, the local authority could close a road for several days.

Under Section 29 of the Local Government Act.

Under the 1925 Act they are permitted to do that.

You may have motor races lasting for two or three days. I think that would be the maximum period.

You may have trials being held before the races. These may go on for some days, as I think that they used to, in preparation for the Grand Prix in the Phoenix Park.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 35 agreed to.
SECTION 36.
Question proposed: "That Section 36 stand part of the Bill."

On the section, I would suggest that traffic signs should be included for pedestrian crossings. I am just wondering whether extra legislation would be required. Traffic signs might also be included for railway crossings.

These may be covered.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 37, 38 and 39 agreed to.
SECTION 40.

I move amendment No. 16:—

To delete sub-section (1).

Section 40 of this Bill proposes to amend Section 52 of the Act of 1946 which gave power to a local authority to execute works in relation to the erection of bridges. It is now proposed to extend that power, notwithstanding the fact that that will constitute interference with certain rights, including the right of navigation. Despite the fact that it does that, the local authority will be entitled to proceed with the erection of bridges.

I am of opinion that, in this matter, the local authorities and the Department have sufficient powers under Section 52 of the 1946 Act, and that it would be a retrograde step to give the power asked for in this section. I think it would be wrong for Parliament to pass a section in a Bill which would give authority or power to any local authority or to any Department of State which would enable either to disregard the rights of navigation which have been there for our people for generations.

The other amendments to this section in the names of Senator McHugh and Senator Stanford may be discussed with the amendment which has just been moved.

If Senator Hawkins' amendment is accepted, I think that our subsequent amendments would fall. I think it would be better if Senator Hawkins' amendment were taken first. Amendment No. 17 provides for the acceptance of the general principle of keeping open our navigable highways. If amendment No. 17 is accepted, there will be no need to move amendment No. 18.

What the Cathaoirleach has suggested is that the three amendments be discussed together. I think Senator McHugh's point refers to decisions that may be made. Naturally, if Senator Hawkins' amendment is carried, amendments Nos. 17 and 18 will not arise. If his amendment were defeated, amendment No. 17 would be put, and if amendment No. 17 were carried it would cover amendment No. 18 and if defeated, amendment No. 18 would survive and could still be put.

I have suggested that the three amendments might be discussed together.

I said on an earlier stage of the Bill what I have in mind in regard to this section. The amendments standing in my name and in the name of Senator Stanford rest on the principle of keeping open our public navigable highways. As I made the case for that before, I do not propose to do so again, except to indicate that the principle for which it contends is already acknowledged to some extent by the Bill in exempting the River Shannon. Barge traffic of various kinds already operates and is a feature of continental waterways.

If, in the future we wish to develop our own navigable highways for the transport of various commodities, it would be well to have the power to carry on that transport by barges on our public water ways. Suppose, for example, the new oil refinery were to be located at Foynes. I do not know, of course, where it will be located, but Foynes in many respects might be an admirable location for it. In that event, the refined product could be sent up the Shannon and its various tributaries to different parts of Ireland without the necessity of having it transported by road. I think the case made by the Inland Waterways Association, which has circularised Senators on this particular Section of the Bill, reveals the importance of the case for keeping our inland waterways open.

I would like to support the two amendments which have been spoken to. I would prefer to see Senator Hawkins' amendment passed. There may be legislative difficulties in connection with it, in view of the fact that it is a rather sweeping amendment and may have repercussions of which we are not aware at the moment. The Minister will inform us on that.

The reason I support the two amendments referred to is that I cannot see why, when the case is given away for the Shannon, it should not be given also for the great rivers, for example, of the South East—the Blackwater, the Suir, the Barrow and the Slaney. If we seal up the entrances to these rivers we may damage transport, we may damage fishing and we may damage tourist traffic. It is quite possible that people in the future may want to use our inland waterways for travel as a pleasant way of seeing the country. I think that, if we were to spend a great deal of money on sealing up a natural asset, it would be most regrettable. I can see that it will be more expensive to put in opening bridges—they will need machinery and they will need a man or men to look after them—but I am perfectly certain that it would be a retrograde step to seal up the mouths of these great rivers as can be done under the Bill as it stands.

I should like to quote one fact from the strong case made by the Inland Waterways Association: As recently as January 1st, 1953, the Board of Roads and Waterways in Sweden obtained State grants for the building of about 150 opening bridges over the various waterways there. The Swedes are a very sensible, a very practical and a very shrewd people, and we would be greatly mistaken if we ignored that policy and took this retrograde step. I hope that at least one of these amendments will be adopted and I would regret personally if it is simply the Blackwater which is saved. I have a great affection for the Suir and the Barrow and it would be a very sad thing if navigation, fishing and tourist traffic were interfered, with on those rivers.

I should like to ask how arterial drainage will affect the rivers of which Senators McHugh and Stanford have spoken. Maybe some of the difficulties they envisage could be got over by prescribing suitable heights for the bridges spanning these rivers. I think that high level bridges are in many cases much more convenient than opening bridges. I understand that it is a difficult technical problem to construct opening bridges. They always require maintenance and certainly require personnel to operate them. When they are open, they impede the flow of traffic and are inclined to cause congestion, not alone on the bridges but on the waterways themselves.

One of the matters which has been the subject of much discussion is the bridge at Youghal. I hope that bridge will be sufficiently high over the Blackwater to allow traffic up as far as Cappoquin and to enable tourist motor boats or pleasure vessels of that sort to ply on that river again, as they did in the past. The same applies to the other rivers he mentioned, the Slaney, the Suir and the Barrow and, in fact, to all the navigable waters in this country. Some safeguard should be inserted in the Bill to ensure that if in the future it becomes desirable or profitable to exploit these rivers in one way or another, we will not be precluded from doing so by the bridges erected over them.

There are very few members in the House or, I may say, of the general public, who will not have heard of what has become known as the famous Youghal bridge, and as one more intimately associated with Youghal than anybody in this House and as one who realises the serious position which has arisen in the commercial life of Youghal for the past 15 or 16 years, I would make an appeal to the Minister to give us a swivel bridge. The old bridge which has been in existence since 1877 has an opening to permit ships—schooners, as we call them down there—to ply up the river as far as Coolbagh, Cooneen and Killahala. In reading the debate in the Dáil, I noticed that, if the proposed bridge is erected at Ardsallagh—I sincerely hope it will not be, because I always advocated in the Dáil, and want to advocate here now, that it be erected as near as possible to the original site—the Minister indicated that it was to be a fixed bridge, with a clearance of 21 feet over high water mark.

Maximum high water mark.

I have made inquiries and I find that, in the past year or so, from 12 to 15 vessels went up to Killahala Quay, 12 or 14 miles from Youghal. No later than last Sundayweek, I made it my business to go there for the reason that I heard that a vesssel, the De Wadden, a two-masted schooner, which comes to Youghal with coal every few months, had arrived there. I saw her loading a very big cargo of pit props. I judged the height of her masts—any man born in a seaport town will have a very good idea of the height of masts— to be in the region of 30 to 35 feet, and my worry is that if the Minister proceeds with his decision to have a fixed bridge, all navigable traffic on the Blackwater will be finished forever.

We have been waiting long enough. People may say that we can blame ourselves for that, for the reason that we could not come to a unanimous verdict, but nobody wants to make political capital out of this. It has been tried, I know, but as one whose interests are centred in Youghal, and I hope they will be centred in Youghal for the rest of my life, I want to make a special appeal to the Minister to give us what is known as a swivel bridge. The De Wadden, the Happy Harry and various other schooners of similar size going up there represent a big trade which means something in harbour dues to us in Youghal. My fear is that we will kill a trade that has developed considerably over the past 30 or 40 years in pit props to destinations across-Channel.

I have been requested by my own people, and particularly by the fishermen of my town, to make this appeal. The upper reaches of the Blackwater, extending from Youghal bridge to Ardsallagh House, are a very prolific salmon fishing ground and the fishermen, any more than ourselves, do not want to see that taken away, and if the proposed bridge is put there—I hope, as I say, it will not be erected there—it will ruin a very fine fishing ground which has a reputation for salmon fishing for the past 50 or 60 years.

I would ask the Minister to give the amendment proposed by Senators McHugh and Stanford in relation to the Blackwater every consideration, because it is a serious matter for a town which has suffered considerably because of this infamous bridge, if I may put it that way. If the Minister forces it, as a loyal Party member, I must support him, but against my better judgment and against my conscience. However, being a Party man I must support him if it goes to a division, but it is with very great regret that I will have to do so.

I should like to support what has been said in favour of the amendments. I think that the section, while well-intentioned, is a dangerous one, and I feel that we should look very carefully at any section which suggests a wiping out of rights. It is quite obvious that individuals in certain circumstances have to sacrifice their rights in the public interest, but we should proceed very carefully before passing a section which says that such and such a bridge can be erected "notwithstanding that it constitutes or will constitute an interference with any rights".

In sub-section (5) there is the question of compensation. I should like the Minister to explain what compensation might be claimed under the head of loss of a right of navigation. The sub-section says that compensation will be paid for, and so on, but it does not say how it will be calculated. There is a reference in sub-section (6) to compensation payable by a road authority, presumably for loss of land. How do you calculate what compensation is necessary and will be paid for the loss of a right of navigation? That is just one of the few points I would like to make.

There is another point: whether legislation of this kind is really good law. I notice in the Schedule that of the 1946 Act four sections are repealed, 33, 36, 39 and 42. I also notice that in Section 54 of the Local Government Act, 1946, which is not repealed, there is a sub-section which gives the right to an owner of land to apply to a District Court to stop a local authority from having entry to his land. Sub-section (4) of Section 54 of the original Act says that the Justice may, if he shall think it is proper, either wholly prohibit entry or specify conditions, and so on. Furthermore, sub-section (5) of that same section lays down that where a Justice prohibits under this section the proposed entry on land it shall not be lawful for any person to enter under this section on the land. If this section is to remain in operation, and we are not asked to repeal it, and if under the new section the building of bridges could be carried out notwithstanding, it seems to me that in law we have a contradiction, an unrepealed section which gives the District Justice the right to prevent entry into a man's land. I am not quite clear how you can build a bridge without having got the right of entry. If the Justice prohibited such an entry, I fail to see, even with the passing of this section, with all its words, "not withstanding that it constitutes... an interference with any right," how this section can in fact repeal by these words, Section 54, which in the Schedule we are not asked to repeal. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that this section is not even good law.

One would think that in this section I am introducing for the first time legislation to enable local authorities build bridges over navigable waters. I am doing no such thing. I am merely clarifying the position of my predecessor. Under Section 60 of the Local Government Act of 1946 a local authority cannot build a bridge over navigable waters unless it does so with the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce or under the authority of a bridge Order. Under that section the local authority if they wish to build a bridge over a navigable waterway have two methods whereby they may do it:—

"(1) With the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is the Minister responsible for looking after navigable waters;

(2) by means of a bridge Order."

We are only dealing with a bridge Order under this section. Supposing we want a bridge Order. Under Section 48, the Minister for Local Government cannot give a bridge Order unless he holds a local inquiry, or else gets the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. If the local authority want a bridge, there must be a local inquiry or the consent of the Minister responsible, namely, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, must be obtained. Therefore, rights of navigation are fully protected and provided for under the procedure laid down in the 1948 Act. But there has been a difference in the legal opinion tendered by some eminent lawyers as to the right even under Section 48 of the Local Government Bill to make a bridge Order for a navigable waterway, for a permanent structure. It is to clarify that doubt that I have brought in this section. I am merely endeavouring to clarify what my predecessor endeavoured to do in 1946. A full inquiry will be held before a bridge Order may be made, and that was the intention of the 1946 Act. As I say, there is a difference of opinion about the legal interpretation of it. We would imagine that I propose building barriers across the mouth of navigable waterways to prevent ships going up and hindering navigation. That is the last thing I would do. I know too much about navigation to prevent or rather to endeavour to legislate for this hindrance or obstruction. I do not wish here to enter into a controversy over the famous Youghal bridge. Just to show you what our intentions are, if the bridge is to be built as a fixed bridge at Ardshallagh, we propose leaving a clearance of 21 feet when the tide is at its maximum and a clearance of 40 feet when the tide is at its minimum. Now with steppable masts —and after all most boats for inland navigation such as the boats mentioned by Senator O'Gorman have got steppable masts—there is no difficulty whatever in boats going up the river. They will not be obstructed in any way. As a matter of fact a member of Dáil Eireann told me that he once waited in a comparatively small boat at Youghal for three weeks for sufficient water to get to Cappoquin. If he had to wait for three weeks a clearance of 21 feet at maximum tide will bring up any boat with up-to-date steppable masts. I do not think we need trouble much about that. With regard to the question of the fishery I cannot see how it enters into it at all.

Senator Skeffington raised the question of compensation, and how it will be determined. Sub-section (1) of Section 40 sets out the machinery by which it will be determined. It is the same as the machinery as set up for determining compensation to be paid when land is acquired. Section 54 of the 1946 Act deals with the entry of lands for the purpose of taking a survey. The Senator might refer to that. If the local authority want land for a bridge such as this, they can acquire it compulsorily under the Local Government Act of 1898. The section to which the Senator referred deals only with entry on land for survey purposes. When it comes to the acquisition of land, he can go back to the Act of 1898. I want to assure the House that I would be the very last person to obstruct the navigable rivers of this country. It is true that we could not give a sufficient clearance at Athlone. We made an exception just to show that we were bona fide in this. We are satisfied that in regard to the other navigable rivers in the country, we can give sufficient clearance for boats equipped with steppable masts which are the most up-to-date boats of the present day.

Is it not the usual practice to adapt the boats to the traffic coming through the ports, rather than try to adapt the ships to the ports through which they pass?

Is the Minister aware that one of the ships which is trading at the moment on the Blackwater and carrying over 200 tons of cargo per month has a bridge superstructure of 21 feet? It will be a hard scrape for it to get through. That ship will want to go up the river at high tide.

It can only go up once a fortnight.

In some cases larger cargoes than 200 tons are carried. The matter is one worth considering. Is the Minister aware that some of the ships on the Blackwater which go up to Cappoquin have masts up to 60 feet above water level? I do not think it fair to tell those people that they must take down their masts and put in a different kind. They have been on this river for over 100 years. I agree with Senator Skeffington when he stressed the fact that we should be on our guard when a section uses a phrase like "notwithstanding that it constitutes or will constitute an interference with any right". I think this is one of those sections in regard to which we must be particularly on our guard. I do not wish to imply that the Minister himself has any evil intention.

Let me say that I am not interested in the Minister's intentions at the moment. I want to make sure that this section is just and safe. The Minister in the process of time may not be Minister. The 70 years' span of life applies to all of us but this Act may last for 50 years or 100 years. The Minister's intentions are irrelevant. We are interested in the law and in legislation and we must have legislation as good as we can, otherwise we are not doing our duty. I insist that to ask these fishermen and traders on the river to lower their masts or superstructure is unjust. I hope the Minister will yield on this section. I think it would be greatly appreciated throughout the country.

Senator McHugh raised the point that we should build our ships to suit our harbours and not our harbours to suit our ships. I understand that, prior to the building of Butt Bridge and O'Connell Bridge, ships came up as far as Guinness's wharf. They still come up. They have adapted themselves to those bridges. There is no doubt that they are able to come up. Admittedly, the ships that came up there, outmoded vessels with 60-foot masts, could no longer go up. I doubt if they could go under some of the bridges in some of the larger ports of this country.

Senator Stanford referred to the navigable rights we are taking away from certain fishermen but it is a most peculiar thing that, when a public inquiry was held in Youghal, the only evidence tendered in opposition to a fixed bridge was that of the people of Youghal who said their town would be ruined. The fishermen had an opportunity of appearing. The owners of these ships had an opportunity of appearing. Not one of them appeared, despite the fact that the inquiry was held in public and a considerable amount of publicity given to it in the Press. Not one of these gentlemen was represented at the inquiry. The only evidence offered there and the only objection to the building of a fixed bridge at Ardsallagh was that the town of Youghal would be ruined.

As a result, Youghal stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest so far as the local authority there was concerned. We must remember that Cork County Council were unanimous in deciding that this bridge should be built at Ardsallagh. The Cork County Council are the people who are mainly concerned and they were backed up by the other local authority principally concerned, namely, Waterford County Council. They were in agreement on the appointment of a consultant to advise them as to which type of bridge was the better. The consultant advised them and they accepted his advice. When all that was done and when certain Deputies and Senators saw that Youghal might suffer, according to them, they suddenly thought of this brilliant idea of bringing in the unfortunate fishermen.

Too often, the unfortunate fishermen of this country have become a cat's-paw in matters such as this. I interviewed the fishermen. There is no class of people for whom I have greater regard. I should not like to see their livelihood go. I am satisfied that there are no more watchful people or people more careful of their rights than fishermen. They were there. Most of the fishermen concerned were at the inquiry listening. They raised no objection and they saw nothing being done to interfere with their rights until some person came along and said: "This is your opportunity to kick up a row. You will be helping the town of Youghal if you do".

The same thing applies to the merchants of Cappoquin who chartered these vessels. Some of them reside in Youghal. They never complained that navigation would be obstructed by the building of a bridge. We never heard of that until there was a change of Government and until a decision was about to be arrived at. My predecessor had definitely decided as to the decision he would take. They were inveigled into this on the side of Youghal. I am satisfied from the conversations I had that the only objection to the building of a bridge was that the people of Youghal thought they would suffer financially by having the bridge built further away from the town than the existing bridge. That is all that there is to the whole matter. I would ask the proposers of these amendments to withdraw them in the interests of the people of Waterford and Cork and let us get on with the job of building the bridge.

I would like to assure the Minister and the House in putting down my amendment I did not intend to take a ramble to Youghal by road or river.

We have cruised down that river too often.

The purpose of my amendment was to preserve for the people a right they have. We have a number of navigable rivers in the country and under this sub-section we are giving power to the bridge authorities, notwithstanding any interference with any right, including right of navigation, to proceed with a bridge. The Minister refers us to Section 48 of the 1946 Act, and he has already put before us the procedure that was adopted in the case of Youghal. That has no relation at all to my mind to the general principle of the application of this sub-section, because we are doing something more than has been provided under Section 48. There is provision made under Section 48 for an inquiry to be held. You must get a certificate from the Minister for Industry and Commerce and so on. What this House is now asked to pass is a section of a Bill, and I would like to say that it does not matter very much, when this matter comes to be considered by the Department or the bridge authority or a court of law, what the Minister's views here were. It is not the views expressed or recorded in the records of this or the other House which will be taken into consideration. It is the facts that are in the Bill which will then be an Act if passed, and the facts are that we are taking away a right and giving power to the bridge authority to erect a bridge whether it interferes with the right of navigation or not.

We have quite recently passed a Tourist Bill to develop our tourist industry. Apart from the commercial aspects of interference by the erection of permanent bridges over our rivers I would like to preserve for our people the amenities these rivers may provide in the future. I do not agree with the Minister that we should just erect bridges and say to the ship owners or people who would be prepared to put boats of one type or another on these rivers that they must have such a ship or boat as the bridge will take. We have here to-night given our approval to the right of the bridge authority to do these things. It is too serious a step to ask this House to take. While the Minister has expressed sympathy with the amendment I would ask him for an assurance that between this and the Report Stage he will try to bring in some amendments to this section that will remove the fears we have expressed. If he does this he will serve a good purpose.

There is just one point that I would like to take up. The Minister gave me the impression, and gave it perhaps also to others, that this amendment had something to do with the change of Government.

I did not intend to give that impression.

As the Minister knows we speak for the ordinary citizens on the Bill.

I accept that.

The ordinary people and the Inland Waterways Association of Ireland are not primarily interested in Party politics. It is a matter of national politics. It is certainly on that level that I am supporting the amendment. Personally I would disagree with Senator Hawkins when he suggested that if we get a very firm assurance from the Minister we should withdraw the amendment now. I think it should be pressed now, and I hope that the Minister will be in an accommodating spirit about it. I feel that it is a matter of national importance and that he will do good for the country by accepting this amendment.

I was, of course, very interested in this discussion, being a member of Cork County Council for more than 30 years. Having listened to the talk about Youghal bridge, I beg to ask the Minister to have some consideration for the people who travel between the Counties of Cork and Waterford. What is happening to them all these years?

I am in full agreement with the Senator.

We have heard all about these navigable rivers and about tourists. The road between Cork and Waterford has been held up for many years and it is about time that a bridge was built. I cannot understand how the people of Youghal could suffer because this bridge is going to be five-eighths of a mile up the river.

I would not be a party to having the navigation of our rivers interfered with in any way from the national point of view, but I cannot see anything happening in this case. I am anxious, and we are all anxious in Cork, that this question should be dealt with once and for all and that the work should begin.

I cannot deal with it until I get the section.

A lot has been said about navigation and navigation rights. I wonder are other rights being considered? Reference was made to the value of navigation rights. There are authorities and rights that are really obsolete. It could easily happen that a lot of these rights now being fought over with a great deal of ardour could become obsolete in a very short time. What puts that into my mind is a thing that I am sure some members of the House are quite conversant with. The Cathaoirleach, if he was in a position to speak, could say a lot about it.

I know of a case where a navigation work was executed less than 100 years ago. It cost Her Majesty Queen Victoria's Exchequer several hundred thousand pounds, and a special Act was passed through the British House of Commons making provision for it. What happened? I do not know whether I am a good historian, but at least one boat got as high as summit level of that navigation work, and since then it is in complete disrepair. Still you have an authority which is transborder, appointed by Leitrim County Council and Fermanagh County Council and others. They elect a body which does not in fact exist. It may be a bit out of order, and it may not, but I quoted it to show what may happen because these things have happened. You have authorities existing in the country which are nobody's baby. Having regard to the fact that transportation methods are changing so rapidly I wonder is it proper that a particular mode of transport right should be allowed to impede development. I do not want to go into the controversy, but if local authorities in the South of Ireland decide what is best in their opinion they should be the best judges of their own business.

I would be very slow to give advice to the people in Cork or Waterford as to what they should do, as I would object to them advising the people in Cavan, Leitrim or Donegal as to what they should do. They should be the best judges of their own business and I know that they are. Having heard this argument with regard to the navigation of the Blackwater I feel that we should not forget that we have obsolete navigation rights. I think that the Minister knows the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell Canal. I believe it was the pipe dream of Sir Eric Drummond, a very decent man as an administrator as far as the Irish people are concerned. He got the notion—just parallel with the introduction of steam power—of building canals. There was one from the Corrib, a similar one from the Corrib to Lough Mask; in the North of Ireland there was the Bann and the Coleraine Canal. Provision was made in a special Act for the maintenance of those works, but what has happened about them? They are just not in operation. I believe there was a marvellous effort made in Galway recently to get one particular boat out from that canal; and it was made successfully, and good luck to them. In the case of the works executed in Roscommon, Leitrim, Cavan and Fermanagh, no one would get any boat, big or small, across the navigation. Still you have the navigation authority proposing to take responsibilities and proposing to levy a tax on the local authorities of Roscommon, Leitrim and Cavan for the maintenance of a navigation which does not exist in practice. Since this has happened with navigation work which has been constructed within 100 years, it could easily happen with the navigation on the Blackwater or any other river.

I greatly fear it is for sentimental purposes that a lot of this is being argued. Those are my views. I do not think it should be argued too far. The bridge or road authorities in Waterford or Cork are the best judges of their own business and it should not be argued here at all.

We must realise that we are legislating for the future. I think it would be the desire of everyone that we should develop waterways rather than close them up as is being suggested. I am anxious to know the difference in the cost. Supposing some factory has developed in Tallow or Lismore, why should we put a fixed bridge across for the sake of £50,000? If the bridge was wanted all along, when the place was not so developed as it is now—and Youghal is developing in a nice way with industries—we should be slow to put a fixed bridge in such waterways, especially in the Youghal rivers.

I fail to see that it is being dealt with from a sentimental point of view. We have to bear in mind that what we are doing to-night will be a means of closing the river for the next 100 years and for the sake of £50,000 we should leave it open.

I would like to ask the Minister one question for the purpose of clarification. We are all in sympathy with the Senators who say they would like to see the Youghal bridge built quickly. The Minister seems to reply: "Give me the section and we can go ahead." I would like to ask him in what way the dropping of the section would prevent him from going ahead with the Youghal bridge?

It is doubtful.

Amendment No. 19 has been ruled out of order on the ground that it tends to increase the charge on State funds.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We cannot take that just now.

I want to ask the Minister would the Road Fund be regarded as a State fund and, if not, would he be prepared to consider amending it——

The Road Fund is a State Fund, if that assists.

That is all I wanted to know.

I began by trying to deal with the general principle, but the Minister and others have brought it down to specific instances. That is just as well, when some Senators are under the impression that the discussion has been taking a sentimental turn. There is nothing sentimental about the situation on the River Blackwater. As far as I can determine from newspaper reports, from a record in the Youghal Tribune of December 18th, 1954, the board of fishery conservators unanimously passed a resolution against the proposed bridge at Ardsallagh. There were also letters from the chairman of Youghal Urban District Council—which, after all, is the relevant local authority.

No, the Cork County Council is the relevant authority.

At least they are closer to Youghal bridge.

They do not contribute anything to it.

That is no reason why they should be penalised. I had the idea that perhaps Cork County Council is thinking in terms of streamlined roads over Ardsallagh bridge and not thinking of the people of Youghal. As far as I can determine, the local people of Youghal—which is the important point—the board of conservators, the urban council and quite a number of fishermen—although they may be hoping for pretty generous compensation—are against it. I believe it would cause considerable detriment to Youghal to have it by-passed and also detriment to fishermen and to the public purse—and that is particularly important.

In this particular case the skilled Irish bridge construction consultants' engineers advised against building that bridge at Ardsallagh. Their opinion was endorsed by the best British and Australian bridge building firms. They held—that is, the Irish firm and the outside consultants—that Youghal bridge could be kept open and reconstructed at a cost under £250,000. On the other hand, the consultant called in as adviser to Cork County Council, which had an overriding decision, advised that the reconstruction of Youghal bridge would cost about £500,000. He also gave— he was not asked for it—an estimate that the construction of a fixed bridge at Ardsallagh would cost £190,000 to £200,000. He did not mention the major roads that would have to be built, or the safeguards to be taken against landslides to which that part of the terrain is subject, and he did not allow for compensation. The county council, having heard his evidence, decided for Ardsallagh bridge and they appointed, guess who? —the consultant who had turned in that report condemning the reconstruction of an open bridge at Youghal Harbour. In other words, they were making him judge and jury of his own case. I think that decidedly smacks of corruption.

This question has been brought down to specific instances, although we tried to avoid doing that; so if we vote on a specific question let us realise we are also voting on a principle, namely, the principle of keeping open the navigable public highways. I shall support Senator Hawkins' amendment and if that is beaten I shall vote for the second, my own amendment and that of Senator Stanford. If that should fail, I shall if necessary fight the third line of action on the Blackwater. I urge Senators to think deeply before they vote against these amendments.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the motion being pressed?

Could we get an undertaking from the Minister that he will give this matter consideration?

I am very sorry I cannot give any such undertaking. I may say the section is required also in connection with a bridge in County Donegal—Lifford bridge.

I am not clear why the section is required. I put the question just now to the Minister and he says it is doubtful. I am still left in doubt by that reply.

In my opinion and in the opinion of some lawyers, the Minister may make a bridge Order under the old section. Other lawyers disagree and say it is doubtful whether a bridge Order could be made for a fixed bridge over a navigable river under Section 60 of the 1946 Act. Lawyers have disagreed as to what may be done under that section and it is to clarify the position and put it beyond yea or nay that I have introduced this section here.

Surely our object is to prevent the Minister having any such power under any circumstances? That is why we are putting forward this amendment.

He is not looking for power at all. The power he thinks is there, but this is put in to clarify the position beyond the yea or nay.

It seems that the Minister is not prepared to go to the courts.

I am more concerned with giving the people abridge than in fighting law cases.

Our concern is to keep the river open.

Question put: "That the words in Section 40, down to the word ‘Shannon', stand part of the Bill."

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It should be clear to the House that if this amendment is adopted there will be no need for amendments Nos. 17 or 18.

The Committee divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 14.

  • Bergin, Patrick.
  • Burke, Denis.
  • Butler, John.
  • Cox, Arthur.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Hickey, James.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • McCrea, James J.
  • McGee, James T.
  • McGuire, Edward A.
  • Meighan, John J.
  • O'Brien, George.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick.
  • Prendergast, Mícheál A.
  • Ruane, Seán T.
  • Tierney, Patrick.
  • Tunney, James.

Níl

  • Clarkin, Andrew S.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Dowdall, Jane.
  • ffrench-O'Carroll, Michael.
  • Hartney, Seán.
  • Hawkins, Fred.
  • Kissane, Éamon.
  • McHugh, Roger J.
  • O'Callaghan, William.
  • Ruane, Thomas.
  • Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.
  • Smith, Matthew.
  • Stanford, William B.
  • Teehan, Patrick J.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators S.T. Ruane and McCrea; Níl: Senators Hawkins and Kissane.
Question declared carried.
Amendment negatived.

I move amendment No. 17:—

In line 25, page 16, before the word "the" to insert the words "or the navigable part of any Irish river".

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 19.

  • Clarkin, Andrew S.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Dowdall, Jane.
  • ffrench-O'Carroll, Michael.
  • Hartney, Seán.
  • Hawkins, Fred.
  • Kissane, Éamon.
  • McHugh, Roger J.
  • O'Callaghan, William.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • Ruane, Thomas.
  • Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.
  • Smith, Matthew.
  • Stanford, William B.
  • Teehan, Patrick J.

Níl

  • Bergin, Patrick.
  • Burke, Denis.
  • Butler, John.
  • Cox, Arthur.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Hickey, James.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McCrea, James J.
  • McGee, James T.
  • McGuire, Edward A.
  • Meighan, John J.
  • O'Brien, George.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Prendergast, Mícheál A.
  • Ruane, Seán T.
  • Tierney, Patrick.
  • Tunney, James.
Tellers:—Senators McHugh and Stanford; Níl: Senators McCrea and S.T. Ruane.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 18:—

In line 25, page 16, before the word "the" to insert the words "or the River Blackwater".

Is the amendment being pressed?

Might I ask how many Senators desire a division on amendment No. 18?

Would the Senators who desire a division on amendment No. 18 please rise?

Senators Dowdall, McHugh, Stanford, Sheehy Skeffington, Cogan and Teehan rose.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 19.

  • Clarkin, Andrew S.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Dowdall, Jane.
  • ffrench-O'Carroll, Michael.
  • Hartney, Seán.
  • Hawkins, Fred.
  • Kissane, Éamon.
  • McHugh, Roger J.
  • O'Callaghan, William.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • Ruane, Thomas.
  • Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.
  • Smith, Matthew.
  • Stanford, William B.
  • Teehan, Patrick J.

Níl

  • Bergin, Patrick.
  • Burke, Denis.
  • Butler, John.
  • Cox, Arthur.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Hickey, James.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McCrea, James J.
  • McGee, James T.
  • McGuire, Edward A.
  • Meighan, John J.
  • O'Brien, George.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Prendergast, Mícheál A.
  • Ruane, Seán T.
  • Tierney, Patrick.
  • Tunney, James.
Tellers:—Senators McHugh and Stanford; Níl: Senators McCrea and S.T. Ruane.
Amendment declared lost.
Sections 40 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 45.
Question proposed: "That Section 45 stand part of the Bill."

Can we have an undertaking from the Minister on this section which states:—

"(1) A rate made by a local authority shall not be invalidated by reason only of the fact that notice relating to the revised valuation list or appeal list prepared under the Valuation Acts has not been affixed at any place in accordance with those Acts."

This is a statutory regulation compelling the person responsible for the publication of this list to have it posted up at certain places. By this section we are relieving the officer of that duty. I think the least that we should insist on is that such a notice of revision of valuation should be published in two local papers circulating in the particular area.

I will look into the matter between now and the Report Stage.

The public should be made aware in some definite manner that we have relieved the officer of the responsibility of having the notices posted in formally prescribed places. It should be made known to them that such a revision has taken place.

Section 18 of the Valuation of Ireland Act of 1852 sets out:—

"The authority shall, within three days after the receipt of such lists, cause to be affixed a notice on the principal outer door or gate pier of the church, and of any one Roman Catholic chapel and of any one Presbyterian meeting house within every parish or part of a parish including a county or urban district in which any hereditaments or tenements contained in such list are situate, stating the time at which said lists were so transmitted, and the time and place at which said lists may be inspected, and shall, at all reasonable hours on every day, from and after the receipt of said lists, for 21 days..."

I think that should be sufficient publication. It is very old and has satisfied the people down through the years. I think that sufficient notice. In December, 1949, a circular was issued to all local authorities requiring them to consider the practice of adopting some common method of notifying ratepayers by post of any alteration in the valuation of the holding immediately after the receipt of the revised valuation list.

I understand that most, not all, of the local authorities now carry out that request so that with the publication given under Section 18, the practice which exists with the local authorities and in view of the fact that individual rated occupiers are notified of increases or decreases, I think that sufficient notice is given to all parties concerned.

Up to the present there was an obligation on the local authority to do the things the Minister has pointed out in order that the rate might be valid. We are removing that impediment and if through neglect or oversight of the appointed officer to carry out his functions they are not carried out, still the collection of the rates is valid. That being so, there could be an inclination on the part of a local authority not to go to the expense or trouble of carrying out these publications. Very few local authorities have adopted the system of notifying the tenant of any increase in his valuation. It is important that the tenant should be notified and that we should insist, if we are dispensing with the former conditions, on publication in at least two local papers circulating in the district.

The Senator will appreciate the volume of these lists. It is a huge volume. All we aim to do is to stop publication on church or chapel gates but we will carry out all the other methods. It is only waste of time suggesting that they could possibly be published on church gates. We will go through all the other methods mentioned for publication and ask that the local authorities bring to the notice of each occupier the changes in valuation.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 46 to 50, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 51.

I move amendment No. 21:—

In sub-section (1), line 7, to insert the word "cultural" before "and".

On the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill I put a few questions as to whether certain organisations would be eligible for financial assistance under this section. There appeared to be some doubt. I mentioned, for instance, Muintir na Tíre, Macra na Feirme and the Irish Countrywomen's Association. From my reading of the appropriate section in the 1941 Act it appeared to me that they could form themselves into a local council within the meaning of the section. But then from my reading of the wording it would appear that such a body as the Gaelic League would not qualify under this section because the words "economic" and "social" are mentioned but not "cultural." It appears to me that by reason of the fact that the words "social" and "economic" are specifically mentioned in the former Act and repeated in this section a virile branch of the Gaelic League, anxious to have a hall erected in a parish for cultural purposes, would not qualify for financial assistance.

Would it not be a social body as well?

That is the point. Social is mentioned specifically.

And that includes cultural.

I do not think it includes cultural.

It should if it does not.

Lest there might be any doubt about it, I thought it advisable to put down the word "cultural." If there was a branch of the Gaelic League in any part of the country which would see their way to collect funds for the purpose of spreading the language and native culture they would be entitled to the assistance that this section can give if we adopted the amendment I now propose. I ask for the insertion of the word "cultural." It would then be economic, social and cultural activities.

I sympathise with what the Senator wants and I agree with him entirely. It seems to me that the word "social" would include cultural in that particular context. Surely a dramatic society, for example, would be both social and cultural? So would a music society. Branches of the Gaelic League, as I knew them, were certainly social bodies unless they have changed since I got older. Parnell Square is associated in my mind with social events as well as with the learning of Irish.

It does seem to be well worth while putting the matter beyond doubt. Professor Hayes is no doubt right in his interpretation but I can hear others saying: "No, we are restricted to social and economic" and ruling that cultural did not come under this. In regard to legislation we should try to be as clear and full as possible. I think it is desirable to add the word "cultural".

I am in full agreement with what Senator Hayes said. The word "social" does include "cultural" but if we added the word "cultural" then in my opinion the amendment would actually restrict the scope of the section. For instance, in order to qualify a council would then require not only to be social and economic but also cultural. A group which had no pretensions to being cultural but formed to further the social and economic interests of the inhabitants would be excluded. I am advised that the word "social" includes cultural and that the scope of the Bill would definitely be restricted if we accepted the amendment. We must have social, cultural and economic to qualify. As it stands at the moment if you accept that social includes cultural then you only require social and economic to qualify you under the section. In view of that, I think you would restrict the scope of the Bill if the House accepted the amendment.

It seems to me that the one way of meeting the matter would be to substitute the word "or" for "and" and thus widen the scope of the section.

I would think that the word "or" should be put in because I find it very difficult to imagine what kind of body is both "social" and "economic".

I was going to mention that point too, that if as the Minister says the addition of the word "cultural" draws across the other words that precede it, then it could be said that the use of the words "social and economic" together would come under the same rule. Would it not be better to make use of the little word "or" so as to leave no doubt whatever in people's minds?

As I have pointed out I would like to accept the amendment. I will certainly look into it. I see the Senator's point of view and am very anxious to meet it. I will look into it between now and the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 51 agreed to.
SECTION 52

I move amendment No. 22:—

In line 41, sub-section (4), after the word "building" to insert "and the appointment of corporation representatives to the body or committee entrusted with the management of the said building."

This amendment is self-explanatory. It is based on the view that it would be a good thing that where local authorities are making grants to other bodies they should have the right to representation on those bodies in supervising the way the money is spent. At present Section 52 allows a corporation to provide a building to be used by an approved local council, and they may entrust the care and management of that building to the council either permanently or temporarily. For this purpose they may by agreement acquire land. They may even supply furniture, office equipment and stationery. They may contribute to or pay the full wages of a person acting as caretaker, and so on. They may even make a grant to an approved local council for providing a building for public meetings, lectures and exhibitions. All of that is excellent, but I feel that at the end of paragraph (b) of sub-section (4) under which they are entitled to make an agreement with the corporation, "including agreements governing the use and disposal of the building," it would be wise that such agreements should include the possibility of the appointment of corporation representatives to the body or committee entrusted with the management of the building, to recognise the principle of representation of the local elected persons on any committee or council which was going to spend money in this way provided by the local authorities.

I think the amendment is not really essential. The section as it stands empowers a local authority, before giving a grant, to require a local council to enter into such an agreement as the local authority considers proper. They may make any regulations they wish before giving sanction to the grant. The local authority could say that it would not give a grant to an approved local council unless the local council agreed to give the local authority representation. As the section stands you are leaving it to the local authority to make regulations, and if they want representation on the local council they may make that a condition precedent to giving a grant. There would then be no necessity for the amendment. I think the section as it stands covers the intention the Senator has in mind. I suggest to him that a local authority would have ample power and discretion and, after all, discretion is one of the things we like to leave with them.

I would agree with the Minister except for the fact that I notice some specific points are already made as to the kind of agreement that can be made. You have a bracket which says "including agreements governing the use and disposal of the building," and it seems to me that that is the point where we might mention the possibility of drawing public attention to the desirability of having public representatives on such a council.

The reference in brackets is merely inter alia. They have a right anyway under this section if they wish to avail of it.

I should prefer that where public money is being spent they would be reminded that they have a right to representation.

I think it would not be very long until they found it out for themselves. Rest assured of that. I would like the Senator to appreciate that one of the reasons why I do not accept this amendment is not that I do not agree with it but that I think it is fully covered. I am most anxious to get this Bill through. It is now the month of April and the Second Reading was taken in the month of October. I want to avoid if at all possible going back to the Dáil with it, but if I have to go back I want to go back with as few amendments as possible, or only with amendments which are essential. I think this is not really necessary in view of the wording of the section.

I sympathise with the Minister and I do not want to obstruct in any way, but I think there is at least one amendment—the last one —which must go back.

There will be certain amendments.

If some go back, the Bill will all have to go back.

It will have to go back, but the fewer amendments the better. Some people may tell you that you are laying down regulations as to what a local authority must do.

You are giving them power.

They have got it already and I am certain they will discover it very quickly too. If they do not discover it when the Bill becomes an Act they will discover it when they read the discussion which has taken place on the amendment, which I hope will be brought to their notice. I am nearly certain it will.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 52 agreed to.
SECTION 53.

I move amendment No. 23:—

In sub-section (1) to add a new paragraph as follows:—

(c) A list of ratepayers prepared under this section shall be published in the prescribed manner both before and after adoption.

I think this is a very reasonable amendment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would the Senator be agreeable to discussing amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25 together?

They are all of the same nature and I would ask the House to deal with them together. All I suggest is that the list of ratepayers should receive publication in the prescribed manner both before and after adoption. If people are going to become ratepayers it is only fair that they should have notice.

Arising out of the amendments of Senator O'Brien, it has been the practice of courtesy of certain public bodies to send a letter to a ratepayer if his hereditament has been reduced. I wonder would the Minister by Order make a regulation requiring the town clerk, the county manager, county secretary or other appropriate official to do so? Most public bodies have passed such regulations requiring their officials to do so. It is always appreciated by the ratepayer when he is given notice, and it is in line with the amendments of Senator O'Brien that the person who has to pay the tax or bear the burden should be informed. By statute he has a right to appeal to the Minister, and he should be made aware of the fact that he has this right so that he can give notice within the 21 days.

The purpose of Section 53 is to aneble the occupiers of small dwellings to be treated as ratepayers and thus enable them to vote in the plebiscite to change a place name. For this purpose local authorities are being empowered under the section to prepare and adopt a list of ratepayers. In the case of a local authority which is urban, one can realise the volume of that particular list. It will be a very big list. The purpose of the amendment is to require the list of ratepayers to be published both before and after the local authority have adopted it. That would be difficult and very expensive for a local authority, particularly a local authority in an urban district or town.

I can assure Senators that in the new regulations which will be made under Section 53 provision will be included requiring a local authority to give notice when the list of ratepayers has been prepared and before it has been adopted by the local authority, so as to permit persons interested to inspect the list. I will provide in the regulations under Section 53 to enable them to notify rated occupiers of the preparation of the list and give them an opportunity to inspect it. I think that will meet the requirements in the proposed amendment.

Is it not correct that this list referred to in Section 53 will be compiled only where an application is made or suggestion is made to have the name of a street changed? It is not very clear that it is only where such an application is made that the authority will take the first steps in that direction. It is only for such a purpose that this list is being prepared and it is only where proposals have been adopted to take a plebiscite for the changing of a place-name.

That is correct.

It has no relation to the revision of valuations.

Absolutely none.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.
Section 53 agreed to.
Section 54 agreed to.
SECTION 55.

I move amendment No. 26:—

In line 49, page 23, before the word "or" to insert the words "approved local council".

This amendment is to make it clear that an approved local council would have priority over a society, club or committee. I would ask the Minister to insert the words "approved local council" as in Section 54 where the council is responsible and entitled to obtain a grant for the erection of a building. After all, an approved council comprises the most responsible members of the community and in my opinion they would be most suited to receive a grant for construction of a swimming pool. The words in the section may be sufficient to cover that, but I would like the Minister to specify that particular council in this section.

If the Senator refers to the section he will see:—

"A local authority to whom this section applies, may, with the consent of the Minister and subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit, contribute to the funds of a society, club, committee or other body..."

I think that would cover the suggestion the Senator has made. I can visualise a local committee, an approved council, who may not be in the least interested in swimming; they may think a swimming pool is a danger in the town, a danger to the children; but the local swimming club may be very interested in procuring a grant and it would be a tragedy if they were deprived of it where the local approved council were not interested.

I did not intend for a moment that anyone else would be excluded. I simply wanted the Minister to include this in the section.

It is included under "or other body".

But not specifically. They may not feel they are entitled to the grant if they are not specifically set out, as a swimming club is, and just as the approved council is specifically set out in Section 54. One of the reasons why approved local authorities do not function very much is that there is not much incentive for their activities. If the approved local council are the first people naturally entitled to receive a grant, I do not see why they should not be specifically set out in that particular section.

In Section 55 the approved local council has no definition whatever for the purpose of this section. I think that the broad term "or other body" should cover all approved local councils or other bodies. I assure the Senator that there is no approved local council which wishes to avail of the section which will not take very good care to inquire whether they come under the term "or other body".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 55 agreed to.
Section 56 agreed to.
SECTION 57.

I move amendment No. 27:—

In line 18, page 24, before the word "for" to insert the words "or gallery".

Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 stand together. Section 57 is a permissive section which allows a council of a county or a corporation of a borough, with the consent of the Minister, to make contributions, but it mentions specifically for, the purpose of providing a museum for the reception of objects of local antiquarian interest. That is highly desirable and a very admirable purpose, but I think you might add to that "or gallery" for the reception of objects of local antiquarian "or artistic" interest. In that way if a local body wanted to make a contribution for a gallery to exhibit pictures either particularly referring to its own history or of general artistic appeal, it would have the power. Seeing that the intentions are to allow local bodies where they think fit—strictly leaving it to them, of course—to encourage museums, it is desirable they should also be allowed —again in any case where they think fit—to contribute towards the expenses of a gallery for artistic purposes. Therefore, the amendment would fit into the intentions of the Bill. The section as drafted mentions the word "museum" and that would seem to exclude everything else.

I understand that county borough corporations appear to be empowered under the Public Libraries Act to establish and maintain art galleries, and the Corporations of Dublin, Limerick and Waterford have actually done so. County councils and county borough authorities are empowered under Section 10 (2) of the Irish Universities Act of 1908 to place any sum at the disposal of an Irish university to be applied for any educational purpose which the local authority consider will benefit the county or the borough.

The university authorities in Cork, I understand, maintain a museum under this section on behalf of the corporation. Apart from people having a commercial interest in art, such as art dealers, it is difficult to see what type of body, other than a university, a local authority or a State-endowed body would want to set up an art gallery. I really cannot see it, and I suggest it would be unthinkable to have a local authority providing a subsidy for commercial art galleries. I respectfully suggest to the House that there is already sufficient provision for a local contribution to art galleries maintained by universities or established by local authorities. I have had no local demand for additional powers of the type which the Senator's amendment would suggest. I am satisfied that, apart from these commercial dealers, no other body would benefit by the amendment suggested by the Senator. I think, in view of what I have said about the Irish University Act of 1908, and the other Act which I quoted, that ample provision is being made for contributions towards the maintenance and upkeep of art galleries.

I agree entirely with what the Minister has said from the point of view of corporations and county boroughs. This amendment was suggested by the Arts Council. I have no interest, and I suppose neither has the Arts Council any interest, in commercial exhibitions, that is, exhibitions by art dealers although these may have a cultural as well as a commercial value. I think, for example, that if you wanted to have a contribution towards an exhibition of pictures in Tralee, the county council might be prepared to make a contribution. However, the matter is clear from the point of view of county boroughs. I know that the museum which the Minister has mentioned is run by University College, Cork, with the assistance, I think, of the Cork Borough Council. With regard to art galleries generally, and the county councils, I would like to make some further inquiries and so I propose that I should be allowed to withdraw the amendment. I may be able to put it down again in another form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.
Sections 57 to 60, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 61.

I move amendment No. 30:—

To delete sub-section (1) and substitute the following:—

(1) (a) The Minister may by regulations make provision in relation to all or any local authorities with respect to all or any of the following matters:—

(i) Making of contracts;

(ii) accounts,

(iii) audit of accounts.

(b) The Minister may by regulations make provision in relation to all or any local authorities except a county or other borough with respect to any of the following matters:—

(i) summoning of meetings;

(ii) procedure.

I should like, first of all, to observe that I have notified the Minister that under paragraph (c) of Section 61, sub-section (1) and under the Public Assistance Act of 1939, there is a similar provision, and that he has never made regulations with regard to contracts. I would ask him, when this Bill becomes an Act, that he should make regulations with regard to contracts because I think that is desirable in the public interest. That, however, is not the real point covered by my amendment.

The point of my amendment is that we should continue certain of the old powers and traditions which our nine county boroughs and borough councils in this country have. A corporation is the oldest form of local government that we have in the country. It goes back to medieval times. A great deal of the procedure and ceremonial associated with these corporations is of medieval origin. The people of Ireland have taken over these rights and privileges and have used them for the purposes of local government.

The present-day constitution and procedure of borough councils are time honoured. For instance, in Clonmel for each meeting the Mayor signs a "precept". This is worded in old English and is read at each meeting and runs thus:—

"Borough of Clonmel—To Wit I hereby convene a monthly meeting of the Council of the Borough of Clonmel to be held in the council chamber within the town hall...etc."

Likewise, all resolutions of the Clonmel Corporation are worded thus:—

"At a meeting of the Council of the Borough of Clonmel holden in the council chamber...etc."

Under Section 60, sub-section (1) of this Bill, it is provided:—

"The Minister may by regulations make provision in relation to all or any local authorities with respect to all or any of the following matters:— (a) summoning and holding of meetings, (b) procedure, (c) making of contracts, (d) accounts, (e) audit of accounts, (f) matters which are subsidiary or ancillary to any of the foregoing matters."

When regulations under paragraphs (a) and (b) above are made, the old traditional practices of the Clonmel Corporation will disappear. There are only nine boroughs, and I suggest that these should be allowed to continue with their existing procedure. It is all set out in the Municipal Corporation Act of 1840. The corporations have carried on very well heretofore and the proposed regulations are solely to facilitate county managers and officials. They have no other useful purpose.

Paragraph (f) of Section 60, sub-section (1) now provides that regulations may be made in respect of "matters which are subsidiary or ancillary to any of the foregoing matters." It is evident that this paragraph has been introduced so that the proposed regulations will provide that county managers in counties where there are boroughs will be empowered by law to wear robes of office and take part in civic functions. An Act passed in 1950, the Repeal of Enactments Act, repealed the section of the Municipal Corporations Act which binds that the Mayor in a borough shall have precedence over all other persons inside the borough. Regulations under paragraphs (b) and (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 60 can now provide that county managers shall wear robes of office when taking part in civic functions. It will sound rather ironical that a Minister who is taking power to give back to the urban councils, corporations and county councils some of the powers which they had formerly should at the same time be removing some of the traditional powers which the nine county boroughs had. For that reason, I am suggesting that the section be divided for the purpose of excluding the four County Boroughs of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford and the Borough Councils of Dún Laoghaire, Drogheda, Kilkenny and; Galway so that they will be allowed to carry on under the old time hallowed procedure which they have had in the past.

As there is no time now to finish on my amendment, may I ask to be allowed the privilege of having my amendment recommitted on a later stage of the Bill?

As there is only this amendment and one or two others for discussion on this stage, I would suggest, subject to the agreement of the House and of the Chair, that we should now finish the Committee Stage of the discussion, and on the Report Stage recommit the Bill from Section 61 to the end. That would enable Senators who have amendments down for this stage to have the privilege of Committee procedure from Section 61 onwards. We could then take the Report Stage.

Is the House agreed on that suggestion?

Agreed.

The remaining sections of the Bill can now be taken.

Sections 61 to 69, inclusive, First and Second Schedules and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 4th May, 1955.
Top
Share