I propose to ask the House to accept all the amendments to this Bill.
In Committee. - Local Government Bill, 1945—From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
Tell us what they are about.
As soon as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle gives me permission. I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:—
Section 6: In page 5, Section 6, sub-section (1), line 41, the words "statutory or other enactment" deleted and the words "enactment or order" substituted.
With this might be taken amendments Nos. 8 and 13. They make exactly similar changes in the phraseology in the Bill. As it left this House the words "statutory or other enactment" appeared in Section 6 (1). It is proposed by the Seanad that these words should be deleted and the words "enactment or order" substituted therefor. It is a drafting amendment to meet the point of view of legal gentlemen in the other House and it has been agreed to by the Parliamentary draftsman.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:—
Section 21: In sub-section (3), page 12, the figures "1929" where they occur deleted and in lieu thereof the figures "1939" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:—
Section 24: In page 13, line 14, the figures "22" deleted and the figures "23" inserted instead.
This amendment is consequential on the insertion of Section 23, on the Report Stage in the Dáil, after which further consequential amendments could not be made in this House.
Does this refer to some period of the year?
No. It refers to a preceding section.
I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:—
Section 30. In page 15, Section 30, sub-section (1), line 17, the words "holding a local inquiry" deleted and the words "causing a local inquiry to be held by one of his inspectors" substituted.
Perhaps we might consider amendment No. 25 in connection with this amendment. In the Act of 1941, and in this Bill, as it left the Dáil, phraseology was used which, it was suggested, might imply that where a local inquiry was to be held, the Minister for Local Government should hold the inquiry in person. Amendment No. 25 is for the purpose of removing any doubt in that regard if such a doubt exists. In amendment No. 25 it is provided that "for the purpose of removing doubts it is hereby declared that any reference, in the Local Government Acts, 1925 to 1941, to holding a local inquiry shall be construed as meaning and as having always meant causing a local inquiry to be held by an inspector of the Minister." Amendment No. 4 carries that principle into the first section to which it is relevant, that is Section 31. It makes clear that the Minister is to cause a local inquiry to be held by one of his inspectors and is not to hold the inquiry himself in person.
Was this question ever raised?
It was raised in the Seanad.
But it was never raised in the courts?
No, never, but since a doubt of that sort arose, one never knows.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (5), line 42, after the word "Act" the words "as amended by this Act" inserted.
Section 44 of the Act of 1941 will be amended by Section 63 of the Bill and, therefore, it is proposed to insert here in Section 30, line 42, after the word "Act" the words "as amended by this Act" so that there will be no doubt as to the exact text of the Act which is referred to in Section 30.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:—
In page 18, Section 38, sub-section (1), line 36, the words "cannot or" inserted before the word "should".
In the Seanad, the original text was thought to be ambiguous because it might refer only to a case in which a person should not, say, for reasons of propriety, function by deputy. Other circumstances were adverted to, for instance, in a case of illness in a family or because an officer was allowed to go abroad to take a course of study. Now, because he was abroad, he could not discharge the duty of his office and, therefore, to make the matter quite clear these words "cannot or" were inserted so that, if by reason of any physical disability, or from other cause such as I have mentioned, he received leave of absence for a particular purpose, and could not function in person, he might be allowed to appoint a deputy if the Minister was satisfied that the circumstances warranted it.
I want to be quite clear as to what this means. What is the new procedure to appoint a deputy? We all know through our acquaintance with local government administration that officers of local government bodies are sometimes called away to other duties and that they will apply sometimes to the local authority for protracted leave in which event it becomes the duty of the local authority to appoint a locum tenens. The local authority must then be satisfied that the person who occupies the position of locum tenens is satisfactory and efficient to perform the particular work which requires to be done in the absence of the excused officer. Is this a new procedure, permitting persons, who should not and cannot perform their duties, to appoint deputies, an abridgment of the right of the local authority to determine who the excused officer's locum tenens should be? Heretofore I think it is true to say that if a servant of the local authority wished to be excused, it behoved the local authority to determine the conditions of employment which should apply to the locum tenens. Are we to infer that under this amendment if the incumbent under the local authority cannot perform his functions, he may appoint his deputy and that the matter of the terms between himself and the deputy should be a matter which the incumbent who cannot perform his duties may decide without any reference to the local authority or are we to gather, whatever the nature of the agreement made between the incumbent and his deputy may be, its terms and conditions must be submitted to the appropriate Minister before the Minister's approval is given to the arrangements envisaged under the section? I think the House is surely entitled to have an answer to these questions inasmuch as this House has been gravely exercised in the recent past about the conduct of a servant of a public authority who was rendered legally incapable of discharging his duty as a result of his appointment to another office and who appointed a deputy. Perhaps the Minister would tell us what is the consequence of this proviso in relation to such facts as existed in that case?
I should like to ask the Minister whether a local authority has power under the authority the Minister will have under this section to grant an office-holder leave of absence for such a protracted period as seven years? I read a report of the proceedings of a county council the other day, and that county council proposed, on the request of the holder of an office, to grant seven years leave of absence from a particular position, and considered a recommendation from that office-holder that a nominee of that person should be appointed to the vacancy. I want to know whether, under the powers exercised by the local authority in these circumstances, the Minister must sanction under this section of the Bill, every six months an indefinite leave or whether alternatively the local authority has, without the Minister's sanction, power to grant seven years leave of absence.
We are not discussing the whole section. We cannot go over our own work again. We have simply to consider the amendment as it comes from the Seanad.
I specifically referred to the fact that "six months" is referred to in the amendment.
I raised the categorical point—the performance of the duty. This section refers not only to the circumstances where the holder of an office should not perform his duties, but there is also a new reference to the holder of an office who "cannot" perform his duties. Now, he may be prevented by physical infirmity; he may be prevented by an act of God or of the king's enemies, but he may also be prevented by the operation of law. Suppose the holder of an office envisaged by sub-section (1) of Section 38 is a dispensary doctor in the town of Monaghan and is appointed a Parliamentary Secretary of Rialtas na hÉireann by law, he cannot perform the duties of his office. Is not that so?
That is so.
That is the very case that we are providing for here by this amendment.
No. The Deputy is quite wrong.
I beg the Minister's pardon.
The Deputy is quite wrong.
Are we not bringing into this section now, for the first time, in addition to the person who should not, the person who "cannot"?
The position of a Parliamentary Secretary does not arise under this section because that is already provided for in other enactments and in other regulations.
Section 38 provides that:
"Where the appropriate Minister is of opinion that, on account of special circumstances, the duties of a particular office should not be performed during a particular period by the holder of the office in person, the appropriate Minister may by order authorise the holder to perform the duties of the office by deputy during that period."
Where is there in that section any exclusion of the office or employment of a dispensary doctor under a local authority? I see none. Does this part of the Bill cover the registrar of births?
It would, perhaps, but this Bill is not necessary to cover that particular case.
But it does cover such a person. That is all I am saying. I want to know does this amendment bring in the person who cannot, by reason of the operation of law, discharge the duties of his office under a local authority, and if so, are we now withdrawing from the local authority the right they once had to determine who his locum tenens should be? Are we giving that man, who is prevented by the operation of law from continuing to discharge his duties to the local authority, the right, subject to the approval of the appropriate Minister, to name his own deputy, and to reserve to himself the right of determining the terms on which that deputy should be employed? Does the Minister now undertake, if that right is recognised by this section, to make himself responsible to the House that if, in the future, any such arrangement is made, he will have brought before him the terms, and will satisfy himself that the terms proposed by the incumbent of the office for his deputy will be equitable and fair? If he undertakes that responsibility, will he go on to tell us whether it will, in his judgment, be fair and equitable for the incumbent of that office who is in receipt of £360 per annum to pay his deputy £250 and retain £110 simply for signing the cheques? We are entitled to an answer, and I await it with interest from the Minister.
I think the Chair has already ruled that the only question we can discuss on this amendment is the narrow issue whether a person is physically unable——
No, no.
I have listened with great patience to Deputy Dillon discoursing at great length on a number of issues, incidentally on the issue as to what the position of the Deputy Speaker in the House of Commons is as compared to our Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I hope that the Deputy will have enough patience to listen to me. I was saying that this section has got nothing to do with dispensary doctors. They are provided for under other enactments and other regulations. This section would be much more properly applicable to the position of a county medical officer of health who, for instance, because of his parliamentary duties in this House, was unable to discharge his proper duties as a whole-time officer of the county council; or it would be more properly applicable to the case of a whole-time officer or employee of a county council who had to apply for leave of absence, as some have had to do. The position of dispensary doctors and of other part-time officers is covered by a completely different set of regulations.
The purpose of this section was to enable the Minister, where special circumstances arose, to grant leave of absence. It was pointed out that because there was ambiguity, arising from the fact that the word "should" had various nuances of meaning, it might, in this context, be ambiguous and that it might relate merely to the propriety of an office-holder functioning in person in certain circumstances. In order to make sure that the case of physical disability by reason, perhaps, of absence from the country—if, for instance, a whole-time person were asked to go abroad in order that he might attend either to his private affairs in abnormal circumstances or to attend a course of study, or to pursue some special investigation which might be of advantage to him in the discharge of his duties, and that it was probable the Minister might take the view that as the section stood he could only give authority for this officer to act as deputy in circumstances in which, in the opinion of the Minister, it was improper for that officer to operate in person—it was to meet that particular point that the Seanad pressed this amendment on me, and I accepted it. It has got nothing whatever to do with the case of dispensary doctors.
Well, then, the question of a medical officer of health is a matter that I intend to pursue for some considerable time. The Minister is quite mistaken in imagining that this amendment does not apply to dispensary doctors. He is quite mistaken in imagining that the words "cannot or" do not raise very special, very important and very novel questions, the most interesting, to my mind, at the moment being the question of the person who is rendered unable to discharge the functions of his office by the operation of statute law. I move to report progress.
Progress reported. The Committee to sit again.