Vol. 64 No. 7
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 2, Section 4, to delete lines 42 and 43 and the figures "1925" in line 44.
The object of the amendment is to delete certain lines which appear to be unnecessary. Section 4 of the Bill as it stands was based largely on the appropriate sections in the 1930 Act. But according to the opinion of our legal adviser we have found that these two lines can be omitted so that that proposal does not involve any question of the principle of the Bill.
I am quite in agreement with the omission of these two lines and I take it that their omission will clear up a great deal of difficulties. The omission of these two lines means that a lot of misconception will be cleared away. Section 26 of the original Act lays down that this is not a committee of the county council. I still hold that the section as originally drafted did create a doubt and the omission now of these words removes that doubt. If the Minister is satisfied that there is no chance of the particular class that I refer to being excluded—that is, that no person shall be excluded from membership of a vocational committee on account of any contractual relationship he has with the county council or the corporation under which the vocational committee functions, but of which apparently it is not a committee—I am satisfied. I think that clears up most of the difficulties I had. The amendment now moved by the Minister clarifies that section. As it stood originally it did imply that such persons did occupy the position which the Minister suggested they did occupy normally—that the committees on which they sat were committees of the local bodies. I think we are now in full agreement that that is not so. If the Minister is satisfied that that is the law most of my objection vanishes.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 2, line 47, Section 4, to delete the words "a vocational committee" and substitute the words "such committee or any sub-committee thereof, or by reason of his being concerned by himself or his partner in any bargain or contract existing at the date of the passing of this Act entered into with such committee or any sub-committee thereof or his participating by himself or his partner in the profit of any such bargain or contract or of any work being done at the said date under the authority of such committee or any sub-committee thereof."
I have no feeling one way or another about this. I think it is perfectly sound.
The amendment is introduced in order to make it clear that disqualification will not apply to existing members. The disqualification provision passed in the original Act might have entailed disqualification upon them. I should explain to Deputy O'Sullivan that we are quite satisfied that vocational education committees are not in the subsidiary position with regard to county councils that I felt they were in legally. We are in fact satisfied that they are independent and not subsidiary bodies. An important consideration which I have not adverted to is that eight members of the county council become members of the vocational education committee. There are members of the county council who are members of the vocational education committee, and there are added members. If under the statutory enactment of Article 12 of the Schedule of the Local Government Act a county councillor becomes disqualified as a county councillor, ipso facto he becomes disqualified as a member of the vocational education committee.
Yes.
If Deputy O'Sullivan had in mind any safeguard for such a person, and if he is quite satisfied that a member of a county council who ceases to be a member of the county council also ceases to be a member of the vocational education committee, I think we have met him in this amendment and, as regards the added members, we are also giving a certain safeguard. Generally speaking, I am assured that the position is as described.
That is satisfactory.
On this amendment I want to remind the House that ambiguity still exists in respect of persons who are directors or officers of a limited liability company, when the limited liability company is in contractual relations with the public body or with a director or officer of it. It is not the business of the Minister for Education to undertake a reform of the local government code but here is a committee, closely analogous to a local government body, that, as he has pointed out, is by no means identical and is not subsidiary, and he is applying procedure in regard to disqualification from these committees similar to that applied to local bodies. I want him to improve his system by removing an ambiguity that remains in the local government code, and I want him to say that not only the persons, such as are described in the amendment, will be spared from disqualification, but that also directors or officers of a limited liability company will be spared disqualification, if the only contractual relationship existing is one between the committee and the company. As the law stands, that is highly doubtful. Let me be perfectly clear about this. Take my own case. Ordinarily I would be, and I propose that I should be, a member of the committee administering the local vocational schools. I do not know what my position is in law, because it is highly likely that a teacher might walk into the establishment of which I happen to be a director, and buy a handful of pencils. I fully understand if that position did arise no heavy penalty would be exacted, because everyone would understand that it was an ambiguity. But I do not want to be made the subject of a law action. I want to conform to the law but I cannot conform if I do not know what the law is. As things are, neither I, nor the Minister for Education, nor the Minister for Local Government, nor the sergeant of the Gárda Síochána really know what the law is. I do not want to have it tried on the dog when I am the dog. The simple way is to settle the thing here one way or the other, and then, when we all know the law, we can comply with it.
I think that is really a matter for the Minister for Local Government. The Deputy is referring to a case that was argued in the English courts which might be applicable to our position here, and arising from it a recommendation was made to the Legislature in Great Britain to make an amendment to the law. It is really not quite appropriate to this particular Bill but is a matter for the Minister for Local Government in the first instance as to whether he will amend the law in that connection.
The truth is that the Minister for Local Government says it is a matter for someone else, and the Minister for Education says it is a matter for the Minister for Local Government. The fact is that the legal departments do not want to undertake the task. Why I cannot imagine. The thing is perfectly simple, and the House does not give a hoot which department does it. I may remind the House that the law of bailment was settled as a result of a suit in respect of a barrel of wine worth £1 5s., but the suit cost £235,000 before it was settled. I do not want to saddle our education committees in Saorstát Eireann with anything of that sort when it could be done in five minutes if one of the Ministers would introduce an explanatory section settling the law.
When making a law, as we are doing now, why be deliberately vague as we are being? It is an extraordinary position. We are being deliberately vague so that the courts will have a nice wrangle on the question. Is that a reasonable line to take up?
As the Deputy is largely responsible for the situation, and as he did not make proper provision in the original Act which he introduced, I am afraid he will have to share the blame.
I can assure the Minister that if it was pointed out when introducing the Bill I would be very reasonable. What we do in the House now is that when an action is brought we pass a piece of retrospective legislation to make it clear. We are asking the Minister about what is going to be done in future. Why not do it beforehand?
If I am the defendant the retrospective legislation will declare me guilty.
I explained on amendment 3 that I thought the position was not quite clear. The only matter on which the Minister had certain doubts was one in which I was not primarily interested, namely that if a man who represented a county council ceased to be a member of the county council he was no longer its representative on the committee. That is not the point I was interested in. I was interested so as to be sure that certain classes of people who are most desirable on vocational committees should not be disqualified owing to contractual relations with the county council or committees of the county council. As the position is quite clear now, I do not intend to move these amendments.
