The first business on the Order Paper is the Second Reading of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1923, and the motion before the Seanad is: "That this Bill be now read a second time."
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL, 1923.—SECOND STAGE.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I should like to make some observations and I should be glad if the Minister for Local Government was present, because I wish to ask certain questions that he might be able to answer.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Minister for Local Government is on his way here and perhaps we might be considering, while waiting, what we propose to do with reference to the further stages of this Bill and the Electoral Bill. The question was discussed briefly yesterday as to what the views of the Seanad would be as to the Committee Stage of one or both of these Bills; whether it should be taken to-morrow, or whether that would be too soon, having regard to the short notice, and whether it would not be preferable to postpone the two Bills until we meet next week. Perhaps we might discuss that matter now. I could, of course, myself arrange the matter, but I prefer to consult, on a question of this kind, the convenience or the Senators and if there is any view any Senator likes to express as between taking this Bill to-morrow and later on I should be glad to hear it.
In view of the fact that this Bill has only been just put into our hands, and even when the Minister attends, that we shall have to take into consideration the different arguments that may be put forward, I prefer the matter to stand over until Tuesday or Wednesday next week.
I am strongly of the same opinion. There are some matters upon which I would like to move amendments, and I would like to have time to draft and frame them.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Supposing we say we will take the Committee Stage of this Local Government Bill on Wednesday and the Committee Stage of the other Bill on Thursday. Will the House kindly consider that as arranged — Wednesday for the consideration in Committee of this Bill, and Thursday for the consideration in Committee of the Electoral Bill?
Could we get any information of what vacation, if that is the right term, or what interval, there will be during Easter?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It looks as if after next week we will not require to meet for a fortnight or three weeks and that will cover the Easter recess. Possibly we may be able to make an announcement on the subject on Tuesday or Wednesday next and state the interval before which the Seanad will not be summoned. I think that will be the most convenient way to do it.
It might be well to point out that if amendments could reach the Clerk on Tuesday morning, for this Bill which is to be taken in Committee on Wednesday, they could be circulated so as to reach members of the Seanad on Wednesday, and that in the case of the other Bill amendments should reach the Clerk on Wednesday so that they could be in the hands of Senators on Thursday.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Of course it would be in the interests of the convenience of the rest of the Seanad if amendments to either of those Bills could reach the Clerk in good time. In the case of the first Bill they should be in by Tuesday morning, and in the case of the second Bill not later than Wednesday morning.
This Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Bill is admittedly a temporary Bill, but it is also in the nature of a Bill that confirms certain action that has already been taken. That is to say, certain schemes have been put into operation in some counties, and however temporary their character may be on paper, action has been taken which necessarily gives to certain vested interests and certain attitudes of thought a character which it may be difficult to change in any very radical manner. It is also a Bill which is very important to the agricultural interests, in that rates are a very heavy burden on a depressed industry. It is desirable that an important industry like agriculture should be satisfied that the local government generally is carried out, not only in the most efficient, but also in the most economical, manner. I think, possibly, now that we have got this Bill before us, the Minister may see his way to make a general statement as to the policy of the Government in respect to this question of local government. A number of schemes have been set up in the various counties; there has been a considerable divergence of methods in these schemes. I would even suggest that, in some cases, they have been set up somewhat hurriedly, and that whilst, in some cases, they are satisfactory, in other cases they are not; and that while it is undesirable to limit unduly the initiative of a county, it is also, on the other hand, necessary for the central authority to keep a firm hand, and to exercise wise powers of co-ordination. I would, therefore, ask the Minister, when he does reply, to state generally if the Government is satisfied, on the whole, with these schemes or, if any modification is desirable, in what direction it should be. I have also heard it suggested that some of the schemes that were set up in the interests of economy have proved the reverse, and if the Minister could now, or, possibly, at a later stage, undertake to give us, in the form of concrete figures, the effect on economy, or otherwise, of these schemes, it would be of considerable advantage. I realise that the central Government cannot do very much towards the improvement of our local government; the matter lies largely in the hands of the ratepayers themselves, and for any defects that may now exist the ratepayers themselves are largely to blame. I think it is common knowledge that in many cases the interest taken in questions of local government is very unsatisfactory. I have myself been a member of a County Council for a great many years, and have had the unpleasant experience of proceeding to attend business meetings, and of having to go home again for want of a quorum. I cannot make the same charge of apathy in the case of any meetings where the question of patronage had to be exercised. I found that on these occasions the attendance was altogether satisfactory. There is one question I should like to ask the Minister. It is rather one of detail, and comes under Section 13. It is to the effect that a member of a local authority, a member of a County Council, for instance, is ineligible for holding any office of profit under such Council. I am afraid that in some cases that is honoured more, recently, in the breach than in the observance, and I should like to ask the Minister what powers there are legally to enforce that provision. Finally, on the question generally of accounts, I should like to ask the Minister whether some improvement cannot be made in the form of Local Government accounts. My criticism is not directed specially against Local Government accounts. It is directed against all our national accounts. But in this case the ambit of Local Government accounts being more restricted, the complications not being so great, I would suggest to him that it would be a good opportunity when this thing is more or less in the melting pot to see whether a form of accounts simpler and more informative to the ratepayers might not be adopted. In the case of certain activities like road repairs the form of accounts should be such that we might be able to compare the broad cost in several counties or in different parts of a county, the broad cost on the basis of the number of miles repaired. Of course I know the question is to be considered with due regard to local conditions, and that we cannot compare subsidiary roads with main roads. It would be well within the province of trained experts or skilled accountants to give us certain data of comparison which would be exceedingly useful to the ratepayers, so as to form some kind of groundwork on which the ratepayers could criticise their representatives. The reform may be somewhat of a radical character, because public accounts have not been tackled from the commercial point of view with the object of effecting economies. In fact, they have never been tackled. They have been drifting on and on, and are based on old and archaic principles. I do suggest that the Minister might see his way to appoint, not a Commission, but some Departmental Committee or expert to go into this whole question of Local Government, so that when this Bill, which is a temporary Bill, expires, we may get a well considered scheme put before the country.
Before the Minister speaks, there are one or two matters which I should like to refer to. Senator Sir J. Keane has rightly stated that the adoption of the new scheme has affected a number of vested interests; and, although the Bill before the Seanad may be of a temporary character, its effect upon these vested interests is of necessity of a permanent character. Now, in Clause 11, regarding the superannuation of officers whose services may be dispensed with, there is a provision for the new Council or authority responsible for the paying of pensions to these officers to appeal to the Minister against the amount granted. There is no specific right stated for the officer, on the other hand, should he not be satisfied and should he desire to appeal. I know the Minister states that the officer has the right of such appeal, and possibly that is quite true; but if he has, and I take it the Council also has the right of appeal under the existing law, why was it necessary to state here specifically the right of one side without a similar statement being made giving the same right to the other party? Should there be any doubt at all about that I think it only right that it should be provided for by the insertion of a suitable amendment. With regard to certain sections of this Bill very extensive powers are conferred upon the Minister. In Clause 10 he has the right to remove a number of existing restrictions regarding the granting of relief. I quite agree that these restrictions should be removed in very many instances, particularly in view of the prevalence of unemployment at the present time. I think it will be agreed that the intervention of the Minister in cases of that kind is a very important step, and that it should only be done at the same time by placing an Order on the Table of both the Seanad and the Dáil giving the right to the Oireachtas to annul any such Order. The same argument applies in regard to Clause 12, where the Minister has the right, after inquiry, to close down and dissolve the Local Authority. Here also I would suggest respectfully that that is a sufficiently serious step to warrant an Order being laid on the Table of the Seanad. Clause 16 also gives the Minister for Education the right to stipulate the educational tests that shall be passed by those who qualify for County Council Scholarships. That also is a matter affecting, as it does, the whole country, and in that case, too, an Order might also be laid on the Table of the Seanad. But in all these cases the Minister has absolute freedom to take any steps that he may consider proper without any right of the Oireachtas to any voice whatsoever. Those are a few things that rather tend to impair what is otherwise a pretty good Bill when all the circumstances are taken into consideration. Senator Sir J. Keane has asked for some figures with regard to the estimated economy to be effected. I think in all changes of this kind economies must be of a gradual kind. The provision for pensions regarding existing employees will be a drag for some time upon the new authority that will be set up, and it will be a number of years before it is possible to make anything like an accurate and sound estimate of what the eventual economies will be. The fact that this is a temporary measure must be borne in mind, and I think everyone who has read these schemes, and has ascertained the diversity that exists between the different schemes, will agree that some codifying law of a more common or national character will require to be embodied in any legislation which may be introduced hereafter in regard to Local Government law.
I should like to refer to Section 7, Clause 2 (a), which reads “all the property of such Board, Committee or other body shall pass through, and vest in, and be held in trust for the Council of the County to which such County Scheme relates.” That property is vested immediately in the County Council of the district, and is properly used for the purposes of the County Council. But to my mind, and I would ask the Minister to consider it, it appears only right that any property passing from a District Council in this way should be ear-marked by the County Council for the purposes of the particular district from which it passes. There is in some District Councils some very valuable property which would be passing, and I think it is unjust and inequitable that such property should go to the credit of the county as a whole. That, I think, is a matter that should be considered. Some of the counties have made provision for such allocation. I do not think it will be difficult for the Minister to put into his Bill some provision that would make that rule uniform, and I would ask him to make some alteration in that particular section to allow for that. A number of the schemes were very hastily prepared. We all know that there was a great deal of difficulty in the country in getting people together, and some of the districts had not adequate representation. Their claims were more or less ignored. I do not like to refer to particular instances, but I hope I will be allowed to refer to the county from which I come — the County of Limerick. There we have a scheme in operation, and when I tell you that from one particular district patients have to go 27 miles to the Central Hospital you will admit that it cannot be a very good scheme. In some cases I know that patients had to wait two days before the ambulance came to take them to the hospital. In such a case as that where the scheme is known to be a bad one I do not think that any Act should provide for continuing such a scheme for a further period of twelve months. I suggest to the Minister that in particular cases it might be possible to reconsider schemes in a more thorough and more businesslike way in a shorter period than twelve months — say six months or three months. Meanwhile things could go on as at present. Looking through the whole country you will find, I think, that many of the remarks I have made apply to other places, and I wish particularly to emphasise that property taken from the District Councils under the schemes should be ear-marked in some way for the district from which it was taken. I think that is only common justice, and ought to be done.
I desire to congratulate the Ministry on the provisions of this Bill, which provide for the breakup of the Poor Law system. I think we cannot dwell too much on the advance made in this temporary measure, because, temporary even as it is, it ends for all time the iniquitous and vicious system which has obtained in Ireland ever since 1840. Very few realise what that system was, and how much the poor suffered under that law. It was drawn up and forced upon us by an Englishman named Nicholls in total opposition to the views of the Commission set up in 1846 by Irishmen of such divergent views as William Smith O'Brien, Archbishop Whately, and Daniel O'Connell. These men drew up a scheme which they considered in keeping with the need of the time, which was really want of work. It was a productive scheme, but that scheme was turned down by this gentleman from England, who had never been in Ireland before, and who reported back that the scheme was not advisable. In 1838 his scheme was enacted, and in 1840 the first workhouse was opened. Very few, except those who have been connected with the administration of the Poor Law, will realise what a tremendous advantage this temporary measure gives to the destitute poor. Under the old system the poor were pauperised, and children even, to the number of 600, were crowded together in one institution. Under this new scheme the boarding-out of children is advocated, and everyone will agree that it is the natural thing for every child to be in a home. There are few homes that have as bad an influence on the growing child as the big institution. I say that with all respect to those who manage those institutions. Under this scheme the poor are separated from the workhouses and from the taint of pauperism which endured for the last eighty years, and on these things and on many others we ought to congratulate this Ministry and those who worked for this object, that such a thing was possible in the times we live in, in the short time since the little Local Government Commission met two and a half years ago under certain circumstances and conditions that were not very easy. There are a few things in connection with the county schemes that I would like to get a little information about. In some of them it is stated that the children are to be boarded out or, where that is not possible, to be sent to Industrial Schools. I would like to have information from the Minister if any recommendation has been made for removal of the obnoxious regulation regarding offences against the Common Law. Industrial Schools were meant for industrial centres, and not for Ireland. In order that a child of sixteen could be admitted into an Industrial School it was necessary that the child should be committed for an offence against the common law, and the custom was to bring the poor destitute child to beg in the streets and then have it brought before a magistrate and committed. I hope that in this temporary scheme that we are now about to pass that that bar, at all events, will be removed. I would also like to know does the proposed system of Home Help alter the terms that were heretofore necessary in order to obtain the assistance for widows with one child. Heretofore a woman with one child could not get outdoor relief. She had to go into some place or other, and those of us who are interested in women and children found that that was a very bad system, because it meant the breaking up of the widow's home. Does the temporary measure provide for relief to widows with children commensurate with the amount paid for a child in an Industrial School? I will give an instance which will illustrate my point. A decent workingman died and left six children unprovided for, one a baby in arms. I was interested to keep that woman's home together, but I found that nothing could be done for her by way of relief. We had to send five of her children into an Industrial School, and the five of them had to commit an offence against the common law before they were admitted. At that time the State and the local rates were making a payment of 7s. 6d. per head to Industrial Schools. If that woman could have got the 7s. 6d. per head for the six of these children she would have been able to maintain all the children. I wonder if Home Help will be extended on lines sufficient to enable a destitute widow to keep her home together? I would not ask for more than the amount given to the Industrial School. I am very sorry I was not in time to table these requests for information. Perhaps the Minister will answer them at some other time.
In Section 7 of the Bill I find that when the property of the Unions is realised the proceeds are to go to the general fund of the County Council, and, of course, would be used in the reduction of the general rate of the county for the ensuing year. I consider that that rather penalises thrift. Some Boards of Guardians have conducted their affairs in an economic and efficient and thrifty manner, and have accumulated a certain amount of property. Under this scheme the result of their application and of their energy in that direction does not re-act in their favour as a unit. It is diffused over the whole county. In certain Unions this scheme would scarcely work out. For instance, the County Waterford Board of Guardians comprised members from the No. 1 Rural District Council, members from Waterford City, and members from the No. 2 District Council, which is situated in the County Kilkenny. Clearly all these units making up a Board of Guardians have a common and particular interest in the funds and in the assets that were accumulated by the Guardians in the course of their tenure of office. Now, the proceeds of the assets so accumulated, situated as they were in the County of Waterford and in the City of Waterford, to the exclusion of the County Kilkenny area, would go to the County Waterford, to the general funds of the County Council. When the County Waterford scheme of amalgamation was being drawn up I had a clause inserted headed "Vesting Saleable Property" as follows:—"That the saleable interest, if any, of property of every description at present held by the Boards of Guardians throughout the county be transferred to the County Board of Health, for use or disposal as opportunity offers, subject to the sanction of Dáil Eireann; the proceeds to be paid pro tem to the credit of the County Council in separate account pending allocation.” You will see the equity of a clause like that. Some of the assets may be realised at once. Others are property assets which may be slow in realisation, but if, and when they are realised, the resulting proceeds will go to the credit of the particular unit in proportion to the valuation of that unit, and be distributed amongst the units comprising the former Board of Guardians, and go directly in reduction of the rates. It is very necessary that some provision like this should be made, because in the particular No. 2 District Council, which was in the County Kilkenny, ratepayers of a certain valuation there have contributed towards building up these assets, and they are certainly not going to allow the proceeds of their interests in the assets of the Union to be taken up and absorbed by the Waterford County Council, and distributed in reduction of the rates paid by the ratepayers to the Waterford County Council, to the exclusion of a similar benefit which should accrue to the ratepayers of the No. 2 Council in Kilkenny. There is no such provision for allocation on the basis of valuation in the Bill as it stands.
I would like to ask the Minister if he can give any explanation as to the County Hospitals. I have not had time to go through the Bill, but I think it is in contemplation to augment, where necessary, the existing County Hospitals. When the Bill was going through the other House I understood it was the intention of the Government that in so doing they would bring these Hospitals up to such a standard as regards medical and nursing staff that it would obviate the necessity for any persons in these counties being obliged to come up for treatment to a Dublin hospital.
That, of course, is a very good thing for the county, but I am afraid if it exists to any large extent it will seriously interfere with the Dublin hospitals, and as you know there is a Bill to give temporary relief to these hospitals by way of sweepstakes, on which I will not express any opinion now, but which will have to be seriously considered when it comes before us. Medical men I spoke to in Dublin look with apprehension on any big exten sion of County Hospitals. They say that very few of the County Hospitals would be in a position to have 100 beds, and without 100 beds no nurse will get a full certificate. It would also cripple the clinical teaching of the medical profes sion. You cannot expect in County Hospitals with less than 100 beds that there will be the same scientific research and so on, that doctors and students who have been trained in Dublin receive. I will not go into the point any further now, but if the Minister can tell us what is the intention of the Government with regard to these County Hospitals we will be glad to hear it.
I wish to raise a similar point. There are two Unions, Castleblayney and Clones, partly in the Six Counties and partly in the 26 counties. Take the Castleblayney Union, one-third is in Armagh and two-thirds in Monaghan, and in Clones Union one-half is in Monaghan, and one-half in Fermanagh. The pensions for the officers of these two Unions cost £500 each, or £1,000 a year on the ratepayers of Monaghan. Portion of the Union that originally belonged to Clones, and portion that belonged to Castleblayney are now exempt from that tax. I would like to know if there is anything in the scheme that would make the ratepayers in Armagh and Fermanagh pay their share of this charge, and so relieve us in Monaghan.
Following what Senator Kenny has said I wish to draw attention to a similar state of affairs to that which exists in County Waterford. I think that there are a great many Unions in which the same question arises. In Limerick portion of the Union property belongs to the city and portion to County Clare. One District Council is in Clare, and the balance of the District Council deals with County Limerick. I should like to ask the Minister whether there are any provisions, which I cannot see in the Bill, and which apparently exist, to deal with such cases. I am sure, in any case, he is prepared to amend the Bill so that the property shall be administered in the same way as is now proposed in the case of Waterford.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Before asking the Minister to reply I want to remind the Seanad that they ought not to be disappointed if, with regard to several of these matters that have been mentioned, the Minister is not in a position to reply. In the first place, it must be recollected that he had no notice of any of these questions. There is another important point to recollect, that he has not beside him any of the officials of his office to whom he can refer for details which it would be impossible for one Minister to carry in his head. Therefore the Seanad will not misunderstand if, in regard to some of the points, he claims further time before dealing with them. That opportunity, of course, will arise when this Bill is going through Committee.
This Bill, although it does not bear it on the face of it, is to some extent in the nature of an Act of indemnity. During the period of the struggle which went on in this country great changes were effected in the administration of the Poor Law. These changes were effected without any definite legal sanction. For instance, Boards of Guardians were abolished in most of the counties, County Boards of Health were set up, Unions were closed and County Homes opened in their stead, all of which was done outside the powers given by any statute. Now, this Bill is necessary for the purpose of regularising what has been done and for the purpose of preventing endless confusion and innumerable causes of litigation. If it were not for that necessity to regularise things it might be possible to carry on as at present until permanent legislation dealing with Local Government could be prepared. We have actually begun the preparation of permanent legislation, and I hope that within three or four months it will be possible to bring it before the Dáil. As matters stand at present, money is being spent and money is being raised in a way that is not provided for by law. It is therefore necessary that the whole matter should be regularised and that all that has been done should be ratified. If it were not ratified the condition of affairs would be certainly chaotic, and, even if a great deal of litigation did not arise, to continue to act as we have been acting outside of actual legal sanction would tend to bring the law into contempt, and would be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is for that reason we have come to the Oireachtas asking that all the things that have been done during the past couple of years, in good faith and as a matter of public necessity, should be ratified and legalised. I would be very far from claiming that any of the schemes proposed is perfect; but all the schemes run in the right direction. The economies effected have been very considerable. There are counties in which economies have amounted to £40,000 per annum. Economies were greatest where there was a large number of Unions, in each of which there was a very big number of officials and a small number of inmates. In these counties the economies were very great. Apart from the question of economy, we have been moving in the direction of humanity, and in the direction of efficiency, regarding it from a wider point of view.
The restrictions mentioned by Senator Mrs. Wyse Power on the granting of outdoor relief have been removed. They have been removed of necessity with the closing of the Workhouses. It is clear that people who are destitute must be relieved. No destitute person can be allowed to starve. Previously in certain cases people might be relieved outside a Workhouse, while other people could only be relieved inside a Workhouse. Now that the Workhouses have been closed it is necessary, under proper safeguards and regulations, that any class of person, except those whose cases would render them suitable to go into the County Home, should be relieved outside the Home. It is the desire to rob the County Homes, where old and infirm people will go, of the rather horrible character that attached to the Workhouses, and to make them places where people can go without loss of self-respect, and where people who have spent their days in honest labour and who are unable to take care of or provide for themselves at the latter end of their days, can be provided for in a decent atmosphere. In regard to hospitals, many of the Workhouse hospitals were not anything to boast of. As somebody put it to me, they were places —some of them—where people could go to die. It is the intention under these schemes to set up in each county one decent hospital, very much indeed above the standard of any of the Workhouse Hospitals — a hospital where there will be a good surgeon, a man of standing in his profession, in charge, and where there will be suitable equipment. Then a certain number — as many as may be necessary — of cottage hospitals will be provided throughout the country. We have not been very anxious to have many cottage hospitals opened, because from many districts there will come spurious demands for such institutions. In many places in the country the local workhouse or the asylum was regarded as the principal local industry. When the workhouse was closed there was a great clamour, and we heard a great deal about the suffering of the sick and the poor. The real cause of the clamour was that local people had suffered a certain amount of loss in trade. They clamoured because the workhouse was closed, and they were anxious to have a hospital immediately. Therefore we have not gone ahead very rapidly in dealing with cottage hospitals. It is the intention, however, to have them opened where they are necessary, so that patients may not have to be removed too far from their homes.
The whole question of the form of local accounts is engaging attention. That, and the matter of holding the people guilty of wrongful expenditure of money accountable, are things which will have to be taken up. At present people are made amenable by means of the surcharge. That is a very unsatisfactory method. It is very difficult to fix responsibility for wrongful expenditure. It often happens that some member of a Board who is self-sacrificing, and who does not hurry home as soon as the interesting business of the meeting is over, remains to sign the orders authorising payment of accounts, and he is then held responsible. It seems to me that some means will have to be devised for seeing that responsible officials should take certain steps so that no improper payments are made and that no paying orders are signed by any member of the Board in ignorance of the fact that a wrongful payment is being authorised. In regard to the transfer of property held by the Unions, to the County Councils, I do not think, although it is a matter that may loom very large in a particular locality, that it is a matter of very great substance, because when you are transferring the debts and responsibilities that have been exercised by the various Unions to the County Councils it seems to me that on the whole it will probably work out as satisfactorily as any other way of transference. I think it will be found in most cases to make very little difference. Where the Union is situated in two counties the assets will be divided between the two County Councils, and that is provided for in Section 7 (b). At the end of 7 (2) b it says: “so much only as the Minister shall appoint of the property, debts, and liabilities of such Board, Committee, or other body shall pass to, or be defrayed by, the Council of that county under this sub-section.”
In the matter of Industrial Schools, under these schemes Courts have not been working, Justices of the Peace have not been functioning, and children have been sent to schools on the principle of boarding out without being committed by magistrates. I think where in the future it is found impossible or undesriable owing to local circumstances to board children out — there may be areas where it is difficult to find suitable foster-parents — children will be sent to Industrial Schools without any taint of criminality attaching to them. In fact, the whole Industrial School system will have to be dealt with in that connection. As I have already said, under Home Help a widow with one child, or any number of children, will be relieved at home, and not at all in the House. That is, a County Home is designed for the aged and infirm, and no one will be relieved there except the aged and infirm. In connection with the matter of removing the restrictions on outdoor relief, however, further safeguards, I feel, may have to be thought out, because the question of giving outdoor relief, say, to an able-bodied man, is one that might lead to very great abuse. I think some system will have to be devised, and that is a matter which is under consideration — the provision of some form of work or labour in those cases — so that it may not be a matter of giving out the dole, which is very demoralising if it is continued.
I am not sure that I took note of any other point. I would like to do something to make the ratepayers of Fermanagh or Armagh pay their share of the pensions. I am afraid I see no power that would enable us to do it. Looking over this Bill there is very little that could be regarded as entirely new. The larger portion deals with the confirmation of acts already done in the course of the last two or three years in the way I have stated. This scheme of amalgamation has in broad outline been recommended by all the people who have studied the Poor Law question. The necessity for the abolition of workhouses and the making of some such provision as those schemes direct, has been recognised by everybody. When the British Government withheld the grants from the local authorities a few years ago it was necessary for the latter to effect great economies, and it was for that purpose it was necessary to carry the schemes out. Most of this Bill is consequential on the acts that have been done, except Section 11, which gives power to dissolve local authorities and appoint Commissioners. That power already existed. With relation to Boards of Guardians, the Minister can dissolve them and appoint paid Vice-Guardians. Because of the circumstances of the country and the breakdown of certain local authorities it is necessary the power should be extended to County Councils and other bodies, because, as I pointed out yesterday, there is at least one which has absolutely collapsed, and there is no machinery for carrying on local administration there. There is one other Council which is on the border line, and if the threat contained in this clause does not induce that County Council to do its duty it may be necessary to utilise the powers given. That is Section 12. Section 14 states that a member of a local authority may not be employed by any other local authority. This is a re-enactment of a decree passed by the Second Dáil. It is necessary because of a certain type of corruption which has existed. There was a very glaring instance of it in Dublin. A member of the Dublin Corporation was employed by the Dublin County Council, and a member of the County Council was employed by the Corporation. Both men happened to be interned. Both their families were provided for out of various funds, and certainly they did not suffer in their absence. The County Council employee came to the Corporation and proposed that the Corporation employee should be paid full salary for all the time he was absent. The other man went and returned the compliment. The result was that the ratepayers of the city were mulcted in very considerable sums. Another instance existed in the case of the Balrothery Union or Rural District Council and the Balbriggan Commissioners.
It was felt desirable to prevent people carrying out this sort of co-operative activity, and the Second Dáil passed a decree prohibiting it. This clause in the Bill is simply a re-enactment of the decree of the Second Dáil. Clause 15 gives power to persons employed by local authorities, partly by the transfer of functions and partly by the fact that public bodies generally are in a very low condition, and that in many cases the officials are not very loyal at the time. The morale of the officials has suffered, and numerous cases have arisen pointing out the necessity for the present, at any rate, of a central authority being able to intervene. Section 16, which gives power to provide for instruction in the Irish language, is a re-enactment of a Decree of the Second Dáil, and of course it only applies to this year. The whole matter will come up again in permanent legislation. It has been acted on by various County Councils. I do not know if it was by the majority, but certain County Councils did strike a rate last year and are striking a rate this year under that Decree of the Second Dáil. It is necessary that it should be re-enacted, so that there may not be illegal payments and to avoid this business of surcharges and remitting surcharges. Section 17, which gives power to provide exhibition scholarships in Secondary Schools, and has been acted on by several of the County Councils this year, was also a Decree of the Second Dáil. Several of the County Councils struck a rate under that Decree. It is again a question of bringing the Decrees of the Second Dáil, which for the past couple of years have been acted on by the local authorities, into conformity with the existing law and reenacting them now by the Parliament of the Free State. The other sections of the Bill, I think, are mostly consequential. The Bill is due to run till the end of March, 1924, but I think, however, as a matter of fact, the actual currency of the Bill may not be more than six months or so. I hope we will be able to make such progress with our permanent Local Government legislation that we will be able to bring the Bill before the Dáil and afterwards before the Seanad in the course of the coming summer.
May I be permitted to ask one question?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Yes.
There is a provision that under the county scheme a Board may be abolished, and under Clause 7 the property of that Board can be alienated. We would like to be assured that that cannot be applied in any way to a privately owned hospital. We know that is not intended, but we should like the Minister's assurance on the point.
It will only apply to public hospitals owned by Boards of Guardians.
Question: "That the Bill be read a second time," put and agreed to.