Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Feb 1971

Vol. 69 No. 6

Local Government Services (Corporate Bodies) Bill, 1971: Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boland

Instead of having the roundabout provisions of subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 3, would it not have been better to have had a paragraph (c) in section 2, which would allow the Minister the latitude which the other subsections are apparently designed to give him?

Presumably, we shall be discussing this with the next section, but as I understood it, subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 3 would allow the Minister to designate, for the purposes of the section, a body not being an authority to which the Act applies. Would it not have been easier in the section which defines who the authorities are to which the Act applies to have put in a paragraph (c) in those general terms?

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Molloy)

In reply to the Senator, section 2 specifies the authorities for whom a corporate body may be established to provide the necessary services. A corporate body cannot be established to provide services for any body other than a local authority or a health board. However, once a body is established for these authorities, other bodies benefit from the services of the corporate body if an Order designating such body is made. It would be inappropriate to include these bodies in section 2 because a corporate body could not be established to provide services for any of these other bodies; it could only be established to provide services for the Minister, for local authorities and health boards.

Mr. Boland

So that anything that would be done after that would be ancillary to the main Act?

Mr. Molloy

Yes.

Mr. Russell

As the section stands, certain committees, boards, joint committees and joint boards are in fact covered by that section. It only specifies local authorities and sets them out as county councils, county boroughs and borough corporations, urban district councils, town commissioners and certain committees. On Senator Boland's point, would it not be advisable to add a third section: joint committees, joint boards and any other form of authority that the Minister may deem desirable? In other words, is that sufficiently omnibus to cover all the joint committees? I cannot think of the type of joint committee the Minister has in mind but perhaps he would give an example or two. But is he satisfied that that section does cover the explanation in the Explanatory Memorandum?

Mr. Molloy

The type of joint committee involved would be a library committee or other committees of a local authority. Local authorities, for the purposes of the Local Government Acts, 1925 to 1968, as specified in section 2, subsection (2), of the Local Government Act, 1941, are county councils, county boroughs, borough corporations, urban district councils, town commissioners and certain committees, boards, joint committees and joint boards formed by the authorities just mentioned.

Mr. Russell

Would they include the regional development organisations in which the local authorities participate?

Mr. Molloy

If the corporate body wishes to provide services for such boards, after the corporate body has been established, it could, if these boards were designated by the Minister, they could then provide services for them as well. However, the Bill as worded, would not allow for the establishment of a body to provide services solely for a regional group. Subsequently, it could provide services for other bodies which may be designated. A corporate body could not be established solely to provide services for any of the regional groups that have been mentioned.

Mr. Russell

But the local authorities make up the regional organisations. They could designate——

Mr. Molloy

Yes. They could be designated.

Mr. Boland

In other words, if the need arose at some future stage to establish a corporate body to provide services for a hospital board or a group of hospital boards, for example, the Minister or his successor would discover that he had not the powers to do so under this Bill?

Mr. Molloy

The Senator has chosen a wrong example because there is power under the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act to do such a thing.

Mr. Boland

The reason I suggest that example is because it is the one that is given in the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. It says, for example, a hospital board,

Mr. Molloy

To make it quite clear, once this Bill is passed, I am empowered to establish a board which will give services to local authorities and to the health boards. When that body is established they can then decide to make their services available to other bodies who would be involved in similar work, to the local authorities and the health boards.

Mr. Boland

The point that Senator Russell and I have been endeavouring to make is that if, in the future, the need became apparent for a type of corporate body to be set up to provide services for some organisation or group of organisations which were not local authorities within the meaning of the Local Government Acts, 1925 to 1968, this Bill would not empower the Minister to establish such a corporate body. The only corporate bodies which the Minister can establish are corporate bodies to service the needs of local authorities or health boards. If, after they are established, it is discovered that their services can be availed of by other groups, then that is provided for in section 3. But if the need, in the first instance, at some future time is for a corporate body to provide services for groups which are not covered under the definitions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 2, the Minister would not have the power under this section to establish such a corporate body.

Mr. Russell

The instance I had in mind, in particular, is one that the Minister is probably aware of, and that is that the Limerick Corporation have, I think, proposed to the Minister the setting up of a joint company with a private enterprise firm to supply propane or butane gas to the city of Limerick. I am just wondering if this Bill will cover that situation. That is what I had in mind when I spoke of joint committees or joint boards not covered specifically by the Acts referred to in this Bill.

Mr. Molloy

In introducing this Bill, I outlined the reason behind its introduction which was to set up a body which could provide services for local authorities which, at the moment, have not the power to act collectively and, in fact, have not the statutory authority to act as a collective group. It is not the purpose of the Bill that local authorities should be empowered individually to carry out the type of function which the Senator has mentioned. I am sure there are other provisions which might enable them to do just that. I do not know whether there are any great difficulties in the way of Limerick Corporation doing what they propose to do regarding this question of the supply of gas to the city of Limerick.

The general purpose of this Bill is to set up a body which could provide services to all the local authorities and health boards, services which they otherwise could not have provided for them because they, themselves, did not have the power to act collectively under any other legislation.

Mr. Boland

Finally, could the Minister clarify the point which I made a moment ago. If, in the future, the need becomes apparent to establish a corporate body to provide research facilities for organisations which are not local authorities or health boards, as defined by this section, this Bill does not, in fact, empower the Minister to set up that corporate body. Is that so?

Mr. Molloy

That is so.

Mr. Boland

Now we have clarified it.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boland

More or less on the same point, in referring in line 4 of subsection (1) to the authorities therein specified, I assume in this case that this refers to nothing other than local authorities and health boards.

Mr. Molloy

That is right.

Mr. Boland

Perhaps now that we are on the section which enables the Minister to allow corporate body services for ancillary organisations to those as defined by paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 2, he might enlighten the House as to what sort of organisations and what sort of activities he envisaged might be covered by subsections (2), (3) and (4). The main point which I should like to make in relation to section 3, and which I mentioned on the Second Stage, but which unfortunately the Minister had not an opportunity of replying to then, was subsection (7) and the implications of it whereby anybody who is nominated as a candidate for election to either the Dáil or Seanad would be disqualified from being a member of any corporate body set up under this Bill.

As we agreed last week, the Bill is virtually, section for section, a copy of the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act, 1961, but that Act did not contain the provisions of subsection (7) or (8) of this particular section. Subsection (8) says that: any person who is a Member of the Dáil or a Member of the Seanad would be disqualified from becoming a member of any corporate body established under this section. I could envisage a situation where a corporate body might be established to advise local authorities on some particular legal matter and the very best brains and advice available might happen to lie within the ranks of either the Fianna Fáil, the Fine Gael or the Labour or Independent benches, either in this House or in Dáil Éireann. Unfortunately, those local authorities would be deprived of the intelligence, experience and expertise of the gentlemen who happened to be Members of this House. I would consider that to be a shameful thing.

To take an example, in the field of engineering, Senator Professor Dooge would not be allowed to become a member of a corporate body to advise local authorities on engineering and, in the legal field, Senator Nash would not be able to give to the local authorities his vast wealth of experience in dealing with local authorities and the legislation governing local authorities. I do not see the purpose of subsections (7) or (8) and I was disappointed that the Minister did not get an opportunity last week of explaining why they should have been included in a section which, apart from them, is almost a direct copy of the Act of ten years ago. Perhaps now the Minister could explain to us why these two subsections have been considered necessary at this stage.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

Could I add a word on that last point made by Senator Boland? I was nominated, by a nominating body, to the Seanad and as far as I recollect nobody ever asked for my consent to this nomination. In fact, I had made approaches which made my consent unnecessary. However, I could well have been nominated by malicious persons. Some of the nominating bodies did not even bother to nominate persons to stand on some of the panels. I could have been managing director of a State company or of a number of them. I could have been in quite an important office but under a section which has been repeated in Bill after Bill I would thereupon cease to be a member of the body in question. It seems to be a defect that ought to be remedied by some amendment in regard to the nomination of persons to the Seanad. The same thing could not happen if one was nominated to the Dáil. Certainly, it can happen to people who are nominated to the Seanad. It seems undesirable. In principle there is something to be said for a person already on such a body not making himself available without first resigning from the body by taking steps that are appropriate, in his view, to achieve this. For someone who is not on such a body to be nominated and thereupon to be disqualified by the nomination seems to be in principle wrong and a maldistribution of power between the Civil Service and the people who offer themselves for public service in the country.

As I am speaking on the section perhaps I could ask a question for the purpose of clarification. I do not see specified here the means whereby the Minister proposes to designate for the purposes of subsection (3), any body to receive the services to be received under subsection (3). It seems quite clear that this body is not going to be an authorised body such as would be in the establishment order which would contain the provisions in regard to the charging of fees in respect of services. The designation of this body also seems to me, if I am reading the section correctly, to be something for which the Minister does not have to have the consent of the Minister for Finance. That seems to me to be odd. There may be good reason for it but there is no explanation here. Under subsection (4) the authorised body, when established by establishment order, is then in the position that it relies on subsection (1) of section 4 for the general authorisation as to the administration of their finances. They seem free, without the control of the Department of Finance, to go off and render their services to bodies that are not authorised bodies but which are designated by the Minister in the manner in which he proposes to designate them without necessarily the charges out to these bodies being proper recoupment of the cost of services being rendered—a matter that I would have thought would be of the greatest interest to the taxpayer whose interest in this matter is looked after by the Minister for Finance. There will be no expressed provisions to have these bodies designated. One is forced back to the view that the provisions of the designation are going to be contained in the establishment order to be made under section 4. If there is, for example, to be the rather constant inflation which has been experienced all over Europe in the last ten years there is going to be some provision for increasing the fees to be charged. Is it to be understood that the establishment order has got to be amended to deal with fresh designations that are to be made, or is it contemplated that the original establishment order will designate all the persons that are in mind by that time to receive the benefit of the services under section 3, subsection (3) thereof. If this is correct it seems to be putting rather a heavy onus on the Minister and to be requiring him to amend his establishment order from time to time with the undesirable consequence that he has got to come to the Houses with the amendments. I wonder if he would consider putting in some special provision with regard to the manner of designation under subsection (3).

Mr. Honan

I just want a little bit of information. I am not quite clear about subsection (3) as to why the Minister may, whenever he determines it is expedient to do so, create with the agreement of the Minister for Finance, a corporate body. I am not quite certain what kind of a corporate body the Minister would have in mind. Senator Russell gave a typical one and these kind of bodies are likely to be springing up now with the concept of reginalisation. In our own area we have the regional development association. They have no statutory powers at the moment. The expenses of that association are being paid jointly by a number of bodies, including the three county councils involved. As of now they have not any statutory powers and could not be termed a corporate body.

What I am worried about is that these bodies begin very simply. They do not seem to be of any great importance at the time. But Parkinson's Law begins to take a hold and the expenses of these organisations are rocketing to quite a considerable amount. I wonder if the Minister can, within this section, give these people statutory powers and make them into a corporate body. If they become corporate bodies, will the county councils and the other local authorities in the area be required to pay the expenses of these companies and boards? This is going to take on a dimension that nobody is bargaining for at the moment. It would be a good thing to have it understood clearly as to whether a number of people who come together to start a board or association under the aegis of the local authorities can apply, under this section, to become corporate bodies. The situation might arise where there would be a proliferation of bodies all doing the same job and costing a lot of money in so doing.

Mr. Russell

As section I, subsection (3) reads, if the Minister decides to set up a statutory body to provide a service for the Minister he can so do. In other words—unless I am completely wrong —the Minister can decide that it is desirable to set up a corporate body to provide any service no matter what it is. Am I correct in saying that he could decide that this corporate body would provide a service which at present is being provided by a local authority, in other words to take some of the powers out of the hands of the local authorities and hand them over to a statutory body on which no Member of the Dáil or Seanad could sit? Are these corporate bodies to provide services which are not being provided by the local authorities because they have not got the necessary legal powers to provide them? As Senator Honan has said quite rightly, the idea of regionalisation is developing. There is a lot to be said for that. But I do not think anybody would wish it to develop, unless there were very good reasons for such a development, at the expense of the local authorities who are in most cases doing a very good job. Many of us have sat on local authorities for a number of years and who appreciated their defects and saw the advantages of working together on a regional basis, would not like to see services taken out of the hands of the county council or city council, as the case may be, and handed over to a statutory body on which no Member of the Dáil or Seanad could find a place due to the provisions of this section of the Bill.

Mr. Honan

And indeed there are not so many members of the local authorities on some of these boards.

Dr. Belton

I should like to endorse what the Senators have said on section 3, subsections (3) and (4). Senator FitzGerald, Senator Robinson and Senator Russell dealt mainly with subsection (3).

What agitated my mind and those of many of the Senators who have spoken on the Second Reading of this Bill in relation to the establishment of these bodies was whether they will usurp the functions of local authorities? If they are to usurp the functions of local authorities, what is their purpose at all? If they are not an adjunct to local authorities, is there to be an accretion of extra staff to these bodies? Senator Honan rightly asked what will be the cost of these bodies. That is a question that was brought out on Second Reading and as I only glanced through the Seanad Official Report I did not see the Minister's answer to the point.

One of the points made was in relation to the County Managers' Association. Would they be provided with a special staff and where would that special staff come from? Will it involve recruitment of more people at the local civil service level? In other words, will it add to the local civil service we already have.

Subsections (7) and (8) were also mentioned on the Second Stage. Senator Boland and other Senators have already spoken about this. Senator Boland's point was that there may be people with a special scientific knowledge that would be of great advantage to these special boards, these corporate bodies, and that it would preclude them from membership of these bodies if they wished to remain Members of the Oireachtas. The bodies, therefore, would be devoid of their experience if subsections (7) and (8) were included. I said on the Second Reading that subsection (7) seems to be worse than subsection (8), though both are bad. I do not see what was in the minds of those who framed this Bill, especially section 3 (7). Why not wait and see if a person is elected as a Member of the Oireachtas and then disqualify him if necessary? I do not believe it will be necessary. I think both are wrong, but subsection (7) is far more wrong than subsection (8). At least they should get the chance of being elected before they are disqualified from any body that may be on under this Bill.

Mr. Molloy

One point I should like to make clear is that, when a corporate body is established, it can provide the services which are set out in the establishment order to the bodies which are mentioned in the Bill. If they wish to extend their services to other bodies these bodies must be designated. Only designated bodies can benefit from those services which a corporate body provides. There is no intention, as I said in my Second Reading speech, to interfere in any way with or to detract from the powers of local authorities.

I should like to expand on this question of designation. A corporate body set up under the Act can provide the services specified in the relevant establishment order which, of course, must come before both Houses of the Oireachtas and which can be annulled by either House. The corporate body can provide these services, on such terms as may be agreed on, for a body which the Minister designates, and which is not an authority to which the Act applies. These provisions are designed to ensure that the services which a corporate body provides can be made available, if the Minister sees fit, at any particular time to other bodies which, though not authorities to which this Act applies, are nevertheless public authorities, or other bodies which have close links with public authorities.

Such other bodies could include bodies set up by establishment orders under other Acts, various regional and local organisations, the vocational education committees, county committees of agriculture, boards of conservators, harbour authorities, public and semi-State bodies. All of these could also benefit from the services provided by a corporate body if the Minister consented to their designation and to their benefitting from whatever services they require, which the corporate body could make available to them.

The power to designate would be used only if the body in question sought the services of the corporate body. When the designation is made, it would be for the designated body themselves to decide on and to agree with the corporate body the extent to which the services would apply and the terms and the conditions that would govern the provision of the services. I hope that is clear.

There is no intention whatever to cut across the services and the powers of local authorities as they exist at the present time. The principal reason for introducing the Bill was to provide a body which would give services to the city and county managers who act as the Official Side in negotiations with the local authority staffs. There has been a certain amount of dissatisfaction because of long delays, which were unavoidable under present arrangements in dealing with these claims because there was no body which could process the claims and assist the managers in preparing their case. The Bill will enable a body to be set up to assist the managers in the operation of the conciliation and arbitration scheme which exists for local authority staffs. The question of the disqualification of Members of the Oireachtas is not new. It has been included in several Bills before.

Dr. Belton

Only recently.

Mr. Molloy

Recently, yes, but it has been accepted——

Professor Dooge

It has become imposed.

Mr. Molloy

It has been accepted for many years.

Mr. Boland

If it was accepted we would not be asking the Minister about it.

Mr. Molloy

It has been accepted in previous legislation. Similar provisions have been included in legislation setting up many semi-State bodies. For instance, the Horse Industry Act, 1970, which I mentioned the last day, the Industrial Credit (Amendment) Bill, 1970, the Film Industry Bill, 1970, and most of the other statutes relating to semi-State bodies and other agencies in the public sector contain provisions similar to those in this Bill.

There are a number of reasons for this. One is that these provisions could be justified on the basis that the principle of separating the Legislature from the Executive is a good one. There is also the possibility of a conflict of interest arising; persons who would owe allegiance to various political institutions might not therefore be the best people to sit on such bodies. One of the reasons why Senators have been disturbed at the exclusion of Members of the Oireachtas is that they may have something very valuable to contribute. We should bear in mind that they are only excluded from becoming members of the corporate body itself, that is, of the board of the corporate body. They are not excluded from sub-committees which that body might set up to act in an advisory capacity. If Senator Dooge or Senator Nash were to be called upon by a corporate body they could act on a sub-committee and/or in an advisory capacity. The corporate body itself is not set up to be an advisory body as such. It is set up to provide specific services. The provisions of subsections (7) and (8) would in no way exclude the brains available even if those people who could best contribute were, in fact, Members of the Oireachtas. It is a good principle to separate both.

Mr. Russell

Could a Member of the Oireachtas work as a member of the staff?

Mr. Molloy

Yes, he could. It is only membership of the board that is prohibited. We did have members of the staff of some of the semi-State bodies who were recent candidates for the Seanad and there was no objection.

Mr. Lyons

Not having a legal mind or being trained in the law, I am not as well able to grasp the particular implications of various sections of the Bill as the people trained in law, but it seems to me to be extraordinary that a Member of the Oireachtas is precluded from being a member of a corporate body set up to do work for other corporate bodies on which Members of the Oireachtas can sit and be elected, such as county councils, county vocational education committees, et cetera.

Whatever about the principle enshrined in this, it seems to me a strange procedure if we can be Members of the Oireachtas and members of the particular bodies I am talking about. At the same time, a body are being set up now with a roving commission. This is the first time I have heard of a corporate body being set up by the Minister for Local Government which have the power to roam into the sphere of the Department of Education, the sphere of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries or the sphere of any other Department. It is something so completely new that it would be well for the legal men to examine it line by line and to make sure that we are not caught up in something that gives extraordinary powers to any particular Department in relation to the function of another Department.

As I said, I feel I am not competent to deal with the legalistic questions but the Minister himself was a member of a local authority and he knows very well what I am talking about. It does seem an extraordinarily strange thing to me that in this body a Member of the Oireachtas is precluded from membership just because he becomes a member of a body that has been set up to help other bodies of which he is already a member. Surely there is no reason at all why the actual nomination of a person to become a Member of the Oireachtas should be taken as precluding him? It certainly should not.

I would say that the Minister should delete the appropriate words in that section and say "when he is elected to either House of the Oireachtas" and not say that a man who has been doing excellent work in a particular body and who has been appointed to it should be precluded, just because he is nominated as a candidate. In fact, he sacrifices his seat even if he is not elected. Surely that is entirely unfair.

Mr. Molloy

As I have explained to the House, if and when this Bill is passed, I intend making an establishment order to establish a body which will provide services to enable the managers to deal with staff claims for salaries and perhaps other matters in relation to those who work for local authorities. In that body, when they are established, the board will consist of the nominees of the County and City Managers' Association and the chief executive officers of the new health boards. I do not think it would be fit and proper that we should include on that board elected Oireachtas Members or prospective candidates. I do not see any need for it. This board would be dealing with very delicate matters and there should not be any outside factors allowed to play on the opinions of the members who would act on it. They should be free and independent in all their decisions. I think they would be somewhat inhibited if they were Members of the Oireachtas, of particular parties representing particular points of view. If it is proposed to establish any other body, the establishment order will come before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It can be annulled and debated by them.

Dr. Belton

Annulled by them?

Mr. Molloy

Yes, if needs be, if motions for annulment were brought forward. I would ask the House to accept that we, as Members of the Oireachtas, should be excluded from membership of these boards. We can make a great contribution in many other ways. I am surprised in one way because if the subsections in question were omitted the way would be open to appoint all Members of one particular point of view. In this way, I am closing the door. There can be no representatives of political parties. I think this is reasonable and I trust that Senators will accept this, particularly in view of the fact that the establishment order which I have in mind is of the nature which I have explained. In that case certainly I do not think there would be any strong case for representation from Oireachtas Members.

Mr. Lyons

Why should the Minister preclude it when it is only nomination?

Mr. Molloy

Well, it is in the same field of activity.

Mr. Boland

The Minister is moving from the general to the particular, I would feel, just a little bit too quickly. I think we all probably want to have a word about this corporate body that might be established to allow for conciliation and arbitration machinery for the staff of local authorities. As has already been said, the Bill is, in the main, a copy of the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act, 1961, and, as many Members of the House know, hospital boards have quite recently been established by order under that Act. Members of this House and of the other House have been appointed to serve as members of those hospital boards. Those Members are from all parties. I would hope, and I am quite sure the Minister was not for one moment implying that any body with such a history of service as his old colleague, Senator Walsh, or Deputy P.J. Burke, might in any way be inhibited by his party affiliations in the manner in which he would serve on those hospital boards. In the same way, these two gentlemen, and many other worthy Members of this House and of the other House, could obviously have a great part to play in local government corporate bodies which might be established under this Act.

The Health Act did not include these two subsections. It seems to have worked very well and very admirably. I do not remember any time when an establishment order was made under that Act which allowed Members of this House, or of the other House, to serve on a board and where they found a conflict of interest at a later stage. It just did not arise. We all know, of course, that the Minister would not be as foolish as to utilise his power to appoint all people of a particular point of view. I do not think that is really a valid argument. The Minister knows that we have more confidence in him than that. These two subsections are really quite superfluous and quite unnecessary to the Bill. It would be just as good and just as effective as the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act, 1961, was and is if these two subsections were omitted.

If the Minister is absolutely adamant on seeing them included, he must, by implication, be saying that there is a serious defect in the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act, 1961, which does not seem to have come to light in its operation in the last ten years. Perhaps he might be able to tell us if that is so and whether it is expected to introduce an amending Act to that Act so as to exclude Members of the Oireachtas from serving on hospital boards or the like from now on. I would not think this is a good thing in the same way as I do not think it is a good thing to exclude Senator Garrett or the Minister if at some stage he was not a Minister but had some great contribution to make in the field of local government, or the Minister for Transport and Power if he had some great contribution to make at some stage when he was not Minister for Transport and Power either in matters of transport or power or legal affairs or any other thing. He would be excluded by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Dáil Éireann. He would be excluded, indeed, by virtue of the fact that he received a nomination to stand as a candidate for election to Dáil Éireann. I do not think it would necessarily be a good thing. I would suggest to the Minister that between now and Report Stage he considers very seriously the quite restrained but, I would think, very valid points that have been made to him in this connection.

However, as section 3 really is the kernel of this whole Bill, could we ask the Minister, as he has spoken about it at some length, what exactly he proposes to do when he makes an establishment order to give the City and County Managers' Association statutory power? The House would be interested to know whether that statutory power will extend to any aspect of their present activity other than negotiations with staff, and whether it will allow them to act as a statutory body in any field other than the fields of conciliation and arbitration and the negotiation of working conditions and pay claims. I think it is important that this should be clarified at this stage, and also whether the Minister envisages a large staff being given to the City and County Managers' Association in their corporate status and whether that staff may be utilised by that association for any purpose other than negotiating with staff associations in relation to wages, working conditions and the like. In other words, will the establishment order allow the managers' association to create a staff and to have statutory standing in any fields or in any activities other than the field of negotiation with the joint staffs of local authorities?

While we are talking about that, perhaps the Minister could tell us why it is necessary—I am sure it must be— that there should be a standard rate of pay, salary and working conditions applying to all grades in the local authority service throughout the country. Could the Minister enlighten the House the reason why, for example, Galway Corporation could not offer a higher level of remuneration to a county engineer than Louth County Council if it were felt that the Galway county engineer was doing a more onerous job? Presumably this corporate body which he intends to establish will be involved very deeply in this sort of thing, so I feel this is a relevant question.

Mr. Russell

Before the Minister replies, could I just raise a point of clarification? He has gone a good way to explain the point, as he sees it, that there is no danger that any of these new statutory bodies will usurp or take over any of the responsibilities or powers carried out by local authorities such as county councils or city councils. That being so, could the Minister state quite specifically that, in fact, the purpose of setting up these statutory bodies is to provide a service which may be availed of by the local authorities covered in this Bill, but that there will be no question of forcing them to avail of these services? In other words, he instances—and we all agree with the instance—the setting up of a statutory body to deal with arbitration for staff wages, salaries and conditions. That is perfectly acceptable. It does not exist at the moment. But if the Minister sets up, say, something like the National Building Agency, if he decides that the local authorities, county and city councils, are not doing a proper job in regard to the provision of houses, which is a very sore point in certain areas at the present time, he may then decide to set up a statutory body similar to the National Building Agency and insist that all building is taken over by this agency.

As things stand at the moment there is a certain reservation, if I could put it that way, on the part of local authorities. They do not have to use the National Building Agency. In fact several of them, as the Minister knows, have availed of its services; but the point I want to make again, in conclusion, is that these statutory bodies will be there to provide a service which will be available on request, not on demand.

Mr. Molloy

This is so. There will be no question of compulsion. They will be providing a service and the local authorities can avail of that service if they so wish. They will not be compelled to avail of the services. In answer to some of the points that Senator Boland made, the only purpose of the establishment order which I propose to make is to set up machinery to facilitate the efficient operation of the conciliation and arbitration scheme which exists for local authorities. That is the only purpose. There will be no extension of powers. There will be no extension of the powers that the managers, acting on that body, will have. They can deal with staff matters arising under the conciliation and arbitration scheme. That is all.

Mr. Boland

That is good.

Mr. Molloy

The Senator mentioned salaries. I think that would be widening the scope of the debate; it would not really be relevant and I do not think we should go into that at the moment. We could debate for a long time this question of whether Members of the Oireachtas should be allowed to be members of these boards. We could argue both sides of that case ad infinitum. I am strongly of the opinion that they should not and this view has been supported by the Houses of the Oireachtas on former occasions and is supported by provisions in many Bills which have been passed; it is a principle which has been adhered to consistently and will, I expect, be adhered to in the future. I think it is a good principle and I would ask the House to accept it.

Professor Quinlan

I think the Minister's reply has shown the dangers in section 3. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the setting up of this type of statutory body by order is a very dangerous thing and I would propose that, when the first order is brought in setting up the City and County Managers' Association as a statutory body concerned with this, we should have a full-scale debate on it in this House. It is the only substitute we can have for what should have been proper legislation which should have presented to us the particular case at which the Bill is aimed in the form of a Bill which we could amend.

Now I ask the Minister to give us an assurance. I know he has said he will not use the clause in section 3 in a way in which it could be used. In other words, he could assign anything to the City and County Managers' Association when constituted as a statutory body, but I ask him if he will give an assurance to the Seanad that when he drafts this order he will accept an offer, which we hope to make from this Seanad, to come and to discuss the order with Seanad Éireann.

Dr. Belton

On the Second Stage of this Bill, the Leader of the House mentioned an urgency to get this Bill through, and our party agreed we would facilitate him to some extent, and that is what we did. It transpires that the reason was that he wanted to give to the County Managers' Association, which already had power to negotiate, a staff. In other words, he wanted to put them on a level where they could employ staff legally. Roughly that is what that meant and I take it I am not wrong in my assumption. If I am I will be corrected, I am sure, by the Minister. I posed the question today— I posed it on the Second Reading— where are all the staff coming from? I should like to know if there is to be an increase in civil service, be it at central or local level. I do not think the Minister has particularly answered that point which was made on the Second Reading and made again today by me. Senator Quinlan also made a particular point. I do not know whether the Minister slipped or not, but he did say that orders were to be laid before the House and that there would be a debate on them.

I am not exactly clear on this. The point I made on Second Reading was whether it is in the form and laying the orders before the House or on the revocation of the orders that Members of the Oireachtas will be able to make contributions. Those are the two points I should like to make at this stage. I am rather afraid that this will tend to enlarge the Civil Service, either local or central government level, to an extent that it will be unwieldy. God knows we are already overloaded enough. I am not criticising the members of the Civil Service in this. It is obvious to anybody who knows, that an underpopulated country like this must have a minimum of civil servants who could equally have been called on to cater for 12 million at the initial setting up of the Civil Service. But an unwarranted increase in the Civil Service now should be examined very closely.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I have a great deal of sympathy with what Senator Quinlan said. I restrain my impulse to make the same point that he has made. This seems to me to be a totally uninhibited power to establish bodies corporate. There does not seem to be any limitation that I can find in this Bill as to what this, or any such body corporate, would be entitled to do. Perhaps it would help if an order were made to tell them to start racing stables. Perhaps somebody could construe this as something that was not within their power because of the Short Title to the Bill. I hate to rely on the Short Title to the Bill to ensure that the Minister was inhibited as to what he was to do.

Generally, as most will agree, what is established under statute, normally speaking, is established by statute and not by a Ministerial order made pursuant to a statute. This has only come in in the last decade, I think. Still, it is probably within the powers of the Legislature to delegate this power to a Minister. One has to look at either the statute or the order made by the Minister pursuant to the statute, the statute having validly given him the authority, to discover if the statute has the power to do these various things. I failed to understand the Minister when he was replying to a point I made earlier with regard to the designation of bodies.

It is really only under subsection (3) that the words "services of a similar nature" come to be used. If I am reading this section correctly, it is only when he comes to designate a body other than an authority under this Bill that he takes power to enable them to provide services of a similar nature. He does not seem to take that power anywhere else in the Bill. Looking at section 4, which we later have to debate, I do not see any power there, either, without prejudice to subsection (1), which gives the generality of what is to be in the establishment order, or in subsection (2) which deals with a series of matters none of which includes the rendering of services of a similar nature.

The Minister had a rather difficult theme here today. There were a lot of people asking a lot of different questions and he had, from time to time, to try to deal with them comprehensively. Perhaps I could isolate this one point; in what manner does he propose to designate? How is this designation to be in fact a valid conferment of power on the body in question to render the service in question, so that that body would be able to thrash it out in the courts if necessary. The establishment order, as I understand it, does not propose to contain the designation, or else there is no need for subsection (3), that all be contained in the power to make the establishment order.

I do not understand how this designation process is to operate. For example, if a body is designated any powers, is this designation to be made by way of order? Where is this order to be found? Is this order to be laid before the House? Is it in the provisions for laying it before either House? Would the Minister consider the exclusion of this power to designate or the limitation of this power to designate, at least to bodies that are analogous to the authorities to be established by the establishment order? Perhaps he could tell us how the provision for designation is to be exercised.

Mr. Molloy

In direct answer to that question, the power to designate would lie with the Minister. He would do so by Ministerial order.

Mr. Boland

Under which piece of legislation?

Mr. Molloy

I would be empowered to designate other bodies which would then be assisted by the corporate body.

Mr. Boland

Under which section?

Mr. Molloy

Under subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 3.

Mr. Boland

Would the provisions of section 7 then apply?

Mr. Molloy

No, not necessarily so.

Mr. Boland

But it states "every order made under this Act".

Mr. Molloy

I would not be obliged to lay the order before the House.

Mr. Boland

You would?

Mr. Molloy

No, not the Ministerial order, because I would have general powers as Minister to enable me to make such orders.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

By virtue of which statute would the Minister have this power?

Mr. Molloy

The Ministers and Secretaries Act.

Mr. Boland

That is different.

Mr. Molloy

It gives me power to make orders. The actual designation would be done by Ministerial order. I do not see anything difficult about that.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I do not know as much as the Minister knows about the Ministers and Secretaries Act.

Mr. Molloy

I am advised that the Act would enable me to make orders.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

And it would be published in Iris Oifigiúil?

Mr. Molloy

Not necessarily.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

A body could be given powers unknown to anybody, presumably the body that had asked for them, to provide services of a similar nature to the services to be rendered by a body to be established under this Bill. It would be entitled to go on by virtue of this unpublished order to charge fees without control of the Minister for Finance as to the amount thereof. Is this the full extent of the powers which we are being asked to give to the Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Molloy

The House is being asked to allow the Minister for Local Government to designate bodies who may benefit from the services of a corporate body. By passing the Bill the House is enabling the Minister to establish these bodies by way of an establishment order which will be laid before the House. If Members of the House so wish, they can propose its annulment and thereby cause the order to be debated and annulled, if such is the decision of the House. During the debate it could happen that the Minister himself would agree to amend the order because there is power in this Bill to amend orders. I am surprised that the Senator seems to think that this is an extraordinary power.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I am not proposing to challenge the exact legal position. As I understand it, it is as the Minister says: he needs subsection (3) to designate other bodies to be entitled to receive the services from the bodies to be established under this Bill. He has power, if granted to him under this section, to make an order under the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries Act which will legally entitle the authorities to be established under this Act to go and render their services. I want to get this point clear. Am I correct in understanding that this is an operation which he can do subsequently to a debate in this House on an annulment of an order without this House knowing anything whatever about it, or anybody else knowing anything about it, and to render charges for the services? This is the point I want to know. The Minister for Finance is required to approve and no doubt has special regard to the financial terms for the establishment order, to the provisions of the establishment order. But the Minister for Finance, who is the person to look after the public purse, and the taxpayer, will not be in any way interested in, or quietly consulted about the designation of other bodies. To get these services, to get the benefit of the Minister's phrase, to get the benefit of these services, we presume any benefit can include services without their being adequately or properly charged for, and are we to assume that the voice of the Minister for Finance will not be heard on that matter? Is this incorrect? Am I to understand it to be, because the establishing order will, in fact, contain provision, or can it contain provision, requiring the Minister for Finance's consent to the terms of any order or designation? I do not want to labour this as I am sure the Minister stated the law correctly. I just wanted to know which law.

Mr. Molloy

That is the position as proposed. I do not see anything extraordinary in it. The Minister will only designate those bodies who request the Minister that they be designated, who make a request for these services and, as has been the practice, these matters will not be done in secret; there is generally some publicity given to any activities of this kind on the part of the Minister and there will be no question of its being done secretly. There would be no purpose in doing it secretly. This will be a public body seeking services from another public body and the Minister would be enabling them to obtain these services. I do not see any difficulty on this point.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

The Minister, therefore, would not have any objection to the insertion of the phrase "at the request of such a body" in the section.

Mr. Molloy

This is all right, under subsection (4).

Mr. Boland

The Minister might consider the suggestion of the deletion of subsection (7) between now and Report Stage.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

The Minister would not normally designate anyway unless he was requested to designate.

Mr. Molloy

I do not think so.

Mr. Boland

The Minister might consider that and the deletions of subsections (7) and (8) before Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boland

On section 4 (2) paragraphs (a) and (c), I note the inclusion of the phrase "if the Minister thinks fit". This is in relation to provisions for the application of the method of appointment being through the Local Appointments Commission in paragraph (a), and in paragraph (c) the provisions of the Act of 1956 in relation to the superannuation of officers or servants of the corporate body which might be established. Whatever about having that phrase included in paragraph (a) in relation to using the Local Appointments Commission to appoint staff, I fail to see the necessity for including the phrase in relation to the application of the superannuation provisions of the Act of 1956. I think it is very necessary that there should not even be the provision "if the Minister thinks fit": it should be clearcut that the superannuation provisions should apply to any officer in the service of any corporate body of this nature. I do not see why any officers or servants appointed to serve that corporate body should not also be appointed by means of the Local Appointments Commission.

In paragraph (f) we have the provision relating to the regulating of the body's finances and the keeping of their accounts. The suggestion has already been made to the Minister on the Second Reading that that paragraph should also include the provision that the annual accounts of any corporate body set up under this Bill should be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. I think this would be a worthwhile inclusion in this piece of legislation and any similar type of legislation that comes before either House in the near future. It is a good thing that the financial standing of corporate bodies, semi-State bodies and any other public bodies such as this should be readily available to both Houses of the Oireachtas and to members of the general public who desire to examine them.

Mr. Molloy

I give an undertaking to the House that each establishment order shall contain a clause saying that the accounts shall be placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas for each body which is established under each individual order. I take it the House will accept that undertaking from me.

Mr. Boland

I would be happy with that. Unfortunately, the Minister probably will not be Minister for Local Government for evermore. His undertaking to this House at this time is of no binding——

Mr. Molloy

I am prepared to give that undertaking to the House now— that each establishment order shall contain a provision stating that the accounts shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Russell

Will the Minister state in his introductory speech to the Dáil that he has given that undertaking?

Mr. Molloy

Yes. The other point raised was about section 4 (2), paragraph (c), where the Minister is given power to make provision in an establishment order for the superannuation of officers and servants of the corporate body and, if he thinks fit, to provide for the application of the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1956, to the body as if it were a local authority. The words "if he thinks fit" are there simply to enable the Minister, in appropriation cases, to apply the Local Government Superannuation Act. There may be cases where it should not apply. There could be bodies established to which it might not be appropriate to apply the Local Government (Superannuation) Act. It could so happen, but it is intended generally that Act would apply.

Mr. Boland

Would it not have been better to say "where applicable"?

Mr. Molloy

It is merely a question of wording.

Mr. Boland

The drafting of legislation is all about the question of wording.

Mr. Molloy

I think if the Minister has discretion in this he will apply it where it is the appropriate Act. I think this is a satisfactory wording.

Mr. Boland

What is the position of subsection (3)?

Mr. Molloy

This requires the consent of the Minister for Finance for the inclusion in an establishment order under the Act of any provisions relating to the appointment, remuneration, superannuation, et cetera, of personnel of a corporate body, and the payment of grants. The necessity for this arises from the central role of the Minister for Finance in relation to public sector pay and personnel matters generally and to public expenditure. He has a central role to play in all of these matters and must be consulted.

Mr. Boland

I just wondered why the Minister for Finance's central role is emphasised in subsection (3) of this section and that it is not felt necessary in subsections (2) and (3) of section 2, which we were discussing some minutes ago.

Mr. Molloy

It is generally accepted that expenditure would arise mainly through the staffing of the body which is set up to provide the services. It is those staffing expenses, in the main, with which the Minister for Finance would be concerned. His consent would be necessary and proper in relation to the establishment of any body.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boland

In section 5 (2) (a) (ii) which relates to the revoking of an establishment order, the dissolution of bodies and so on, there is reference to "any one, or more than one, other body established by an establishment order." This allows for the transfer or distribution of property rights and liabilities to in subparagraph (i): the Minister, and in subparagraph (ii): any one, or more than one, other body established by an establishment order. Are we to take it that an establishment order under that subparagraph actually refers to an establishment order made under this Bill when enacted, or an establishment order made under any piece of legislation which allows any Minister to make any establishment order? Could a body created under the Bill be dissolved by a revocation order and its properties, rights and liabilities transferred to a corporate body established under the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act, for example?

Mr. Molloy

Bodies referred to in section 5 (2) (ii) established by order under this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Mr. Russell

Could I say something on the Bill?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

On the Title?

Mr. Russell

No, on the Bill in general.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

On the Fifth Stage.

Bill reported without amendment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Next Stage?

Mr. Molloy

Could we take it now?

Mr. Boland

The only difficulty about taking it now is that we did ask the Minister to consider three points between now and Report Stage and I should like to give him the opportunity of at least drawing his breath, never mind considering those three things.

Mr. Molloy

We could, to facilitate the Senator, if he wishes, take it later on today.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is for the House to determine now the date on which the Report Stage will be taken. The House has already ordered business for next Wednesday. I suggest we order the Report Stage of this Bill for the same day.

Mr. O'Higgins

Wednesday, the 10th?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have misdirected the Seanad. There is no business ordered for next Wednesday. I understand the business ordered in advance is for 17th February and not the 10th February.

Report Stage ordered for next sitting day.