SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1924. THIRD STAGE (RESUMED). – Seanad Éireann (1922 Seanad) – Thursday, 5 Feb 1925

SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1924. THIRD STAGE (RESUMED).

Mr. DOUGLAS

I beg to move:—

Section 46. To add a sub-section as follows:—

(2) No allowance granted under this part of the Act shall be capable of being taken in execution or otherwise alienated by process of law for the payment of any debts or liabilities of the person to whom such allowance was granted.

The section was substantially the same when the Bill was introduced in the Dáil as it will be if this amendment is inserted. For some reason which it is not quite clear, this portion of the section was removed. Personally I think it is very much better that this provision, which I think was inserted in most of the previous Bills of the kind, should be retained. I think it is a mistake that, particularly in the case of the older pensioners, it should be possible to tempt them to enter into debt, and of speedily spending their pensions before a particular instalment is paid. I think a provision of this kind by which instalments due cannot be taken for a debt— which means in effect that they cannot get credit in advance of their pensions —is a very wise provision and I hope it will be agreed to.

Mr. BURKE

This provision was put into the Bill originally. I had not, however, any hard and fast views on the matter and I left it to a free vote of the Dáil. I am in the same position in the Seanad. I do not know how it will go afterwards. Probably the Dáil will uphold their decision. I am just in the same position as I was in the other House.

Mr. LINEHAN

I oppose this amendment. I think it places pensioners under this Bill in a very privileged position as compared with other people. Not only are they in the enjoyment of a very good salary during their term of office, but when their period of service expires they are provided with a very handsome pension at the expense of the ratepayers. Then, you add to that the further privilege of not being liable to pay their debts with these pensions. That is a privilege, I think, that should not be accorded to them. It is one that the ratepayers would not consent to. Not only do I oppose this amendment, but I also oppose the section in the Bill which provides that their pensions cannot be taken for debt.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

At the present time, yes. Even on the Committee Stage, if you intend to move the deletion of a section, in all fairness you should put down an appropriate amendment to that effect. It would be simply that the section should be deleted. Then the Ministers and Senators would be prepared for it. I think they should get notice. It would be very irregular that in an important Bill of this kind, any Senator could get up and oppose the passing of a particular section without notice of any kind. It is an objectionable practice I think in the interests of the House itself. However, you are now speaking on the amendment and you may deal with it.

The EARL OF MAYO

I did not quite follow what the Minister said took place in the Dáil.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The Minister said that it had been left to a free vote in the Dáil, that he himself and the Government had an open mind on it and that they preferred to leave it to a free vote and that he was taking up the same attitude here.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I think the amendment restores the section as it stood when originally introduced in the Dáil. It was quite true that objection was taken in the Dáil that the Minister left it to a free vote of the House. I do not believe myself in Senator Linehan's description of the amendment—that it adds a new privilege to pensioners. It does not mean that they shall not continue to pay their debts. It means, as I understand it, that the pension cannot be pledged in advance. It does not mean that once a payment is made you cannot take action against these people to compel them to pay their proper debts.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

To this extent Senator Linehan is right, that if a creditor got a judgment against a pensioner he could not take the pension in satisfaction of that judgment.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I was going to point out that the object was to secure for the pensioner the enjoyment of his pension which, presumably, in most of these cases is not very large and which is necessary to enable him to live. The position, unless I am incorrectly informed, is that under previous Acts a provision of this kind has been inserted, and that so far as most pensioners are concerned they are governed by a section of this kind. I think that it is also in the interests of the trader. You have to consider their position as to what extent they should give credit. And it would be much better to have uniformity in regard to all pensioners. With that object I propose this amendment.

Amendment put and declared carried on a show of hands by 14 votes to 12.

Section 46, as amended, put and agreed to.

SECTION 47.

Whenever, under the provisions of any public or local Act, a local body is empowered to grant to any of its employees, other than officers, an allowance in respect of the loss of his employment, Section 36, sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 38, Sections 40, 43, 44 and 46 of this Act shall be substituted for such provisions, and shall apply to the granting of such allowances, and to such allowances when granted with the following modifications, that is to say:—

(a) in such application the words "office" and "officer" shall include "employment" and "employee" respectively, and the word "salary" shall include "wages";

(b) in calculating an employee's service only the continuous service of such employee under such local body at the date of the loss of such employment shall be reckoned;

(c) no allowance shall be granted to an employee under this section whose service is less than the period of service required by such public or local Act as a condition of his being granted an allowance thereunder.

Every person who at the date of the abolition of a committee of a county infirmary or a county fever hospital (whether before or after the passing of this Act) under or in pursuance of Section 7 of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, was or shall have been an officer of that committee, and, except in the case of a medical officer, devoted the whole of his time to the service of the committee, if his period of service under such committee was, or shall have been, not less than ten years, shall have the same rights to receive an allowance from the county or county borough council or councils to which or to a committee of which the functions of the committee aforesaid have been transferred on its abolition as he would have under this Act if he were a pensionable officer of a committee or joint committee of the said council or councils and had held office thereunder for a period equal to his period of service under the committee aforesaid, and had been removed from such office for a cause other than misconduct or incapacity.

Mr. FORAN

I beg to move:

"Section 16 of the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909, shall be amended by the substitution of three years for ten years as the period to be taken into account for calculating the average salary and emoluments of an established officer for the purposes of that Act."

I do not think I require to say much in moving this amendment. I think three years as an average is a more equitable arrangement than ten years. If you take ten years you are going over a very erratic period. As things are to-day they are more or less stabilised. Consequently it is my opinion that the period of three years would be much better for all concerned.

Mr. BURKE

I am opposed to this amendment which is somewhat similar to an amendment we had in the Dáil. Officers of asylums are on a different footing altogether from other officers of local authorities and have a superannuation code of their own, based on a contributory basis. The basis of the calculation of their pensions is over three years, whereas the basis for the ordinary officer of a local authority is calculated over ten years. There are also other differences in the positions of officers of lunatic asylums and officers of other local authorities. Certain officers of lunatic asylums automatically become pensionable when they arrive at the age of fifty-five, and the basis of calculation of their pensions is so many fiftieths of their salaries and emoluments, whereas the basis of calculation of the ordinary officers of local authorities is so many sixtieths. The whole thing hangs together; it has been worked out on mathematical lines, and if we are to vary one part of the system we will have to vary the whole system.

It would be a very invidious thing at present to change the basis of calculation from ten years to three years. During the last few years the wages of officers of lunatic asylums have gone up beyond all bounds, in some cases over 100 per cent., and naturally any officer retiring now would, under this amendment, get a much higher pension than if the pension was calculated on a ten years' basis. Perhaps in ten years' time after wages come down to normal a retiring officer will be in a much worse position. This amendment would put the officers at present going out in a very much better position than those who had gone out previously. It is also, of course, inequitable from the point of view of the rates. As I have mentioned before, a Commission is about to inquire into this whole matter of lunatic asylums and poor relief, and I am not prepared to reconsider the code dealing with asylums until this Commission has brought in its report. For these reasons I am opposed to the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I move to delete the word "ten" and substitute therefor the word "five." Section 49 provides that officers of committees of county infirmaries and county fever hospitals whose posts are abolished may receive compensation by way of an allowance after ten years' service. The amendment seeks to provide that any employee whose post is abolished and who has had five years' continuous service shall receive some allowance by way of compensation. I am merely following the precedent set in the Railways Act, 1924, an Act passed through the Oireachtas as a Government measure. It was very distinctly laid down in the first instance at the instigation of the Government that anybody losing his post who had five years' continuous service was to get some compensation.

If it was right to make a proposal of that kind where private employers were concerned, surely the responsibility of the public to its employees is none the less serious than that of a private employer to his employees. What is right in one cannot be wrong in the other. One can easily visualise the position of employees, such as those people who would come under the amendment, who have got into a particular groove, who have had a specialised form of training and whose training is of no use to them in the outer world. Is it fair after they have given, we will say, five years' service of that kind, service of an exceedingly important character, that from a humane point of view they should be turned adrift at this particular time when unemployment is rife in all industries, and that they should not be given compensation? They may have nine, or nine and a half years' service, and still they are debarred. This is not a case of giving a pension for services rendered; it is merely to give some compensation for taking away the person's employment, for no fault of his own, but because a Bill has been introduced to improve public administration. I suggest that that is elementary justice to people whose positions are abolished, that after they have spent at least five years studying and practising at their callings they must have qualified themselves specially for their employment, and it is not just or equitable to say: "You have got to lose that employment in the public interest; we offer you nothing else; we cannot hold out any guarantee to you that you can get employment elsewhere, because the duties you have been performing are of no use to you in the commercial world, but we will not give you any compensation for the loss of your office. Your sacrifice must be made at our dictates in the interests of the public." If that is the principle underlying this Bill certainly it is not a just or equitable principle, and it is one which the Government themselves said would not be just or equitable to apply to the railways. Under the Railways Act people with less than five years' service are entitled to two months' salary for each year in a lump sum, and if they have five years' service they are entitled to compensation by way of a pension. If it was right in the case of the railways I assert that it is right in this case, and that it is the least we owe to these people whose employment we are filching from them, not because of any fault of theirs.

Mrs. COSTELLO

Are such employees who have less than ten years' service not entitled to compensation when the office is abolished?

Mr. BURKE

No, they are not. I would like the Seanad to understand that these officers at present are not entitled to any pension or gratuity of any kind. If one of these officers was dismissed heretofore, even after fifteen years' service, be could get no pension. Under this Bill we are giving pensionable rights to officers who have had ten years' service. We are not granting that concession to officers with less than ten years' service, because if we did we would open the door to gratuities. You cannot pay a pension to an officer with less than ten years' service, and you would have to pay him a gratuity. A very heavy burden has already been placed on local authorities as a result of these gratuities, and I do not think that there is any great hardship on these officers if they have been in office for less than ten years. It is not the same as if they had devoted their whole time to the work for fifteen or twenty years and were not in a position to take up any other employment. Any man who has devoted only ten years to a certain employment should be quite well able to take up another position.

Mr. BENNETT

I do not think that the position as regards employees of local bodies and those of the railway company is on all fours. It might in the case of a certain number of railway employees who had prepared specifically for such employment, clerks who had to undergo an examination and a period of training, and so on. These considerations, I think, would put them in a rather favoured position as compared with the position of employees of local authorities. But apart from that, the Railways Act was a great experiment, and it was essential, I take it, that the good-will of everybody concerned should be secured. There surely must be a limit as to the period for which a man would be justified in getting compensation. I think the ten years prescribed by the Government is thoroughly reasonable, and that the amendment should not be accepted. I do not believe that it is on all fours with the precedent of the Railways Act, and I think the position of any servant of a local authority will not be injured by leaving the Bill as it came from the Dáil.

Mr. O'FARRELL

The position of these people is absolutely on all fours with nineteen-twentieths of the railway employees. With the exception of the clerical and supervisory grades no railwayman is entitled to any pension whatever, and can have his services terminated at any time with a fortnight's or a month's notice, as the case might be. Such men only retain their positions permanently during good conduct on the strength of their industrial power. That may have something to say to the fact that the Government adopted a different policy in the case of the railways from what they do in the case of these people whom they realise have no industrial power. If they had treated the railway employees unfairly they might not have had any railways working, and I think it is a very bad principle to embark on the policy, that simply because people are not able to hit back, or to defend themselves by powers other than Parliamentary, you must sacrifice them in the public interest, as you call it. When a man in this employment has eight years' service he must be fairly well advanced in years from the point of view of getting employment, and the fact that he has been an officer under a local body is certainly no recommendation for him to get employment in the industrial or commercial world. It would be rather against him. I suggest that it is absolutely cruel to take away the employment of these people, tell them that you will not give them any compensation, but simply close your eyes and ears to any sufferings you inflict on them, and say: "No matter what becomes of the children of this man with nine and a half years' service, it is only in the interests of the public and the ratepayers that he should get no compensation." If that is the spirit underlying the Bill I certainly am not prepared to associate myself with it.

Colonel MOORE

It is suggested that a boy of twenty years who goes into the employment of a public body and leaves after five years should get a gratuity. That seems to me to be very unreasonable. Such a young man would be in the prime of life. He has been serving a certain kind of apprenticeship and is fully capable of going out into the world and earning his living at something else, just as if he had been employed in a shop. Pensions are for people who are worn out, not for young men of twenty-five, who are just qualifying themselves for their work in life.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Sections 49 and 50 put and agreed to.

SECTION 51.

(1) Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall cease to have effect from and after the election of county councillors held next after the passing of this Act.

(2) At any triennial election of members of a county council held after the passing of this Act, the number of members to be elected to the county council shall be increased by a number equal to twice the number of rural districts in existence in such county on the appointed day.

Mr. De LOUGHRY

I move:—

Before Section 51 to insert a new section as follows:—

"51.—(1) A county council may, if they think fit, by resolution passed at any annual meeting, direct and prescribe that the Chairman of the Council and his successors in office shall be styled and known as county mayor.

(2) At the first meeting of a county council after the triennial election of members of the council, the council may, if they think fit or, in the case of this power having already been exercised, shall, elect one-fourth (neglecting any fraction when the whole number is not divisible by four) of the whole number of members of the council to the style and dignity of county aldermen, each member voting for a number of members (other than himself) equal to the number to be elected and the persons receiving the highest numbers of votes (subject to the drawing of lots in the case of ties) to be deemed elected.

(3) No proceeding in any court, act in the law, public document, or other matter or thing, shall be invalidated, questioned, or otherwise impaired or affected, by reason only of the description of any person as councillor or chairman, instead of an alderman or mayor, in pursuance of the powers given by this section."

By this amendment I propose that a county council should have the power, if it so desires, to style its chairman county mayor, and also that a fourth of the members of the county council should be called county aldermen. I think that "chairman of the county council" is a rather unwieldy term, and that "county mayor" would be much easier. Apart from that, much more dignity is attached to the word "mayor" than to "chairman." The chairman of a county council is a representative of a large area, and I think the county council, if it wished, ought to be entitled to call its chairman the county mayor. It would mean no expense to the ratepayers, and I am sure many Senators will be glad to hear that. If that is right, I think the other thing follows, that you should have county aldermen. If the amendment is accepted, I think it will be availed of fairly fully.

Mr. JACKSON

I am afraid that some confusion might arise in a county that has a borough within it, and also has a mayor. If you had two mayors in one county it might lead to a great deal of confusion. The Senator might be prepared to omit the few counties where there is a corporation. I should certainly support anything that would add dignity to the chairman of the county council and the county council itself. They have done a lot of honorary work since 1899, and if the Senator can hit on another term which will make them even more revered I will agree.

Mr. De LOUGHRY

I also represent a county in which there is a borough and a mayor, but I do not see any possibility of confusion, because one is the mayor and the other would be simply the county mayor.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

I would suggest to the Senator to withdraw his amendment and to think over it for the Report Stage. I think it a pity at this hour of the day to stabilise titles that are not Irish. Surely if the Senator wants to give these gentlemen titles of a dignified kind, he can easily find Irish titles.

Mr. KENNY

I do not know exactly how this amendment was inspired or whether it was a brain wave from Senator De Loughry. I speak as chairman of a county council and I think it would strengthen the Senator's position if he had submitted this idea to the General Council. I think it would be turned down. I can visualise a number of chairmen of county councils, and I have in mind a number of mayors and as a matter of personality I would put a county council chairman before a mayor in intelligence, dignity, and everything else. I am not disposed to vote in favour of this amendment.

Dr. GOGARTY

Surely for the sake of the masons that would be required and the Irish silversmiths, the amendment is worth consideration. If the title mayor would not do as it has been associated with urban usage, I suppose "bailie" would do.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Or bailiff.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. LINEHAN

I move:—

Section 51, sub-section (2). After sub-section (2) to add a new sub-section (3) as follows:—

"(3) The power of a county council to co-opt additional members after a triennial election shall cease after the passing of this Act."

By the 1908 Local Government Act the county councils were empowered, after each triennial election, to co-opt two additional members. I propose that that section be repealed and that that power cease after the passing of this Bill. I think it is desirable that every member of a county council should be elected from the ratepayers, should be in full touch with them, and should know what his responsibilities are. If it is necessary to increase the number of members of a county council, it can be done by adding two members to the number of members elected, and in that way we will get over any difficulty of the number of county councillors being too small for the work they have to do. I observe in sub-section (2), clause 51, that the number of members to be elected to the county council shall be increased by a number equal to twice the number of rural districts in existence in such county on the appointed day. That will more than double the elected members of the county council. If it is necessary to have any new members, I suggest they be added for election purposes and that the system of co-option be done away with. From my experience of co-option, I have found that not the most suitable men were co-opted but rather the most active canvassers. When they got into the council they were the most extravagant in spending the rates.

Mr. BENNETT

I support this amendment. I know a case where a man was rejected by the electorate. He had friends on the council, and immediately the election was over he was co-opted and good men rejected. I do not think that ought to be allowed under this Bill if it can be prevented.

Mr. KENNY

I should think that the object of giving power to county councils to co-opt members was so that they might redress any inequalities in representation throughout their area. There are also men of considerable experience who, sometimes, owing to the activities of their opponents at an election, are not elected. Men who gave good service in the county council, because they were not of a particular way of thinking, failed at the elections. You cannot argue by individual cases that the thing is going to be wrong. That does not justify the undermining of the general principle. The principle, I think, was all right, in giving a county this margin that they might secure to themselves men of any special knowledge in any branch of local government or redress some inequality in some part of the area. The principle is sound and should be maintained.

Mrs. COSTELLO

Many a good man and woman could not hope to get into a county council by election, and I think it is giving the county council but a small power to allow them to co-opt two people.

Mr. BURKE

I would be prepared to accept the principle of this amendment, but it is not necessary, because the Senator has amendment 145 down, which does the same thing in a neater form.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The amendment, Senator Linehan, will not carry out your purpose, because it makes no provision for filling up casual vacancies at all.

Mr. LINEHAN

I do not see that. This section is confined to additional members co-opted after the triennial elections.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

"The power of a county council to co-opt additional members after a triennial election shall cease after the passing of this Act." If you were to say the power conferred by section so and so, sub-section so and so, shall cease, it would be all right, but if you put it in the general way it is in this amendment you make no provision for casual vacancies, nor do I know what the provision is. There must be some provision dealing with casual vacancies on a county council. If your amendment were passed in its present form it would wipe away any such provision without putting anything in its place.

Mr. FARREN

I suggest that amendment 105 should be withdrawn.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The whole thing can be considered when we come to it in the schedule.

Mr. FARREN

Otherwise it would put a tremendous burden on the ratepayers in holding elections for vacancies. We all agree that when casual vacancies occur, the council should have power to co-opt new members.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Yes. They are two quite different things.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. KENNY

I move amendment 106:—

Section 51. To add a new sub-section as follows:—

"(3) No person shall be eligible to be nominated for election to a county council who is not a resident and ratepayer in the county electoral area for which he seeks nomination."

This is a General Council amendment. The chairman of each district council was an ex-officio member of the county council. The R.D.C.'s are done away with, and he no longer exists on the county council. At present, the qualification is to be on the register of the county. In County Waterford there are five electoral divisions. To each is allotted a certain number of vacancies on the county council. At present any man on the register for any part of the whole place can be elected for any division. He need not live even in that area. The aim of this amendment is that, as far as it can secure it, the candidate going up for any particular area shall be at least familiar with his area.

I would like to support the amendment. I think it is very important, especially the provision that a person seeking election should reside in the particular area. There has been a certain amount of ill-feeling in county councils, owing to the contention that persons from one part of the county put undue expenditure on another part. It is only right that a person seeking election should come from the area in which he seeks election. Senator Foran wanted a definition of the word "ratepayer." On a certain occasion a number of aldermen and councillors went to a certain mayor and told him that the ratepayers were becoming indignant at the cost he was putting upon the constituency by litigation and otherwise. He listened very carefully, and then he said: "As regards the ratepayers, I would advise you gentlemen to go home and look up Walker's Dictionary. You will see that ‘ratepayer' is defined as ‘a person who pays rates.' The more rates he pays, the more he is fulfilling his function in life." I think that would apply to a good many of the arguments here.

The suggestion is that it should read this way:

"No person shall be eligible to be nominated for election to a county council who is not a resident or ratepayer in the county electoral area for which he seeks nomination."

That does not cover the point—I do not know whether you wish to cover it or not—that he might cease to have his qualification the day after he was elected.

Mr. KENNY

That could be raised by any citizen or resident in the county. A public informer could raise that.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

It could not be raised at all except there is a statutory provision enabling it to be raised. If the amendment was passed in its present form any resident or ratepayer might cease to have that qualification the next day and still retain his seat.

Mr. KENNY

I am quite prepared to add the words you suggest.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Then it will read:—

"No person shall be eligible to be nominated for election to a county council or to serve as a member of such body who is not a resident or ratepayer in the county electoral area for which he seeks nomination."

Mr. BENNETT

Would not that inflict a great hardship on a farmer or labourer who migrated during the course of the year? He would be disqualified the moment he left the county. I do not think that is reasonable. It is very hard that a man should not be allowed to better himself by changing his farm or employment. The law as it stood inflicted no hardship. I never heard it suggested that because a man was not a resident he was not competent for the position. There were men in many councils who were not resident in a particular area and who represented the whole county satisfactorily. I think the law as it stood protected everyone. Everyone in a county who was a householder was entitled to be elected, and I think it worked well. I do not think the change proposed will work better.

Mr. KENNY

There are several rural district councils in the County Waterford, and under the old system each chairman of a rural district council was ex-officio a member of the county council. These men resided in these areas and were ratepayers. Now all that is swept away, and I am trying to secure that there shall be some uniform representation in place of that. The amendment was hurriedly drawn up but, in its amended form, it will effect the object I had in view.

Mr. FARREN

There was, I think, a provision in the Local Government Act under which a member of a local council who ceased to be a burgess automatically became disqualified. I know that in Dublin some years ago one or two members of the Corporation were removed from the burgess roll and ceased automatically to be members.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That might be under the Corporation's special Act. I do not recollect that there was any provision of that kind.

Mr. FARREN

It may have applied specially to the Dublin Corporation.

Mr. BENNETT

Senator Kenny very properly suggested that a district should have somebody responsible for the expenditure of money in that district. Under the present Bill I think that is not so essential. Under the previous Act the expenditure on district roads was paid by the district. All the roads now are to be a county charge and, as the road expenditure is the main expenditure in a county, I think the business can be conducted as well by members of a county council, no matter what district they come from.

Sir J. KEANE

I do not think you can deal with this satisfactorily and justly in the terms of administrative areas because, as mentioned by the Minister, the County Kilkenny goes down to the north bank of the River Suir, and residents on the north bank in the administrative area of Kilkenny are bound up with the city of Waterford. They are outside the boundary, but they use the city of Waterford for their markets and other business. You debar them entirely from representation on the council of the county where they do all their business. I have no doubt there are other cases like that near Dublin. It would not be equitable to exclude residents outside the boundaries from representation on the council. I think it would be much better to allow natural causes to operate and leave the thing as it was.

The EARL of MAYO

I understand that the mover of the amendment has accepted the word "or" and also fallen in with your suggestion, sir, to cover the case of a man who might be elected on a council and, the day after, not be a resident or ratepayer. Therefore, I think that we might either vote on the amendment or agree to it as altered.

Mr. BURKE

I wonder could we get agreement to substitute "local government elector" instead of "resident" so that the amendment would read:—

"No person shall be eligible to be nominated for election to a county council or to serve as a member of such body who is not a local government elector or a ratepayer...."

If we could have "local government elector" instead of "resident," it would be much better for administrative purposes. It might lead to great difficulties if the word "resident" were left in.

Mr. KENNY

A ratepayer in the county electoral area might not live in the area at all. It might be like the old pocket boroughs long ago—he might be living in Timbuctoo.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That is so under the amendment which you have accepted as altered. You have accepted the alteration to change "and" into "or." Therefore, this gentleman living in Timbuctoo, if he were a ratepayer, would be eligible under your own amendment.

Mr. KENNY

I will not recognise my amendment soon. If the amendment is agreed to, I am satisfied.

Mr. MacEVOY

I think it would be well to abandon the amendment because the electors are the best judges. If they want a man from Timbuctoo, I think they should be allowed to have him.

Amendment—"No person shall be eligible to be nominated for election to a county council, or to serve as a member of such body who is not a local government elector, or ratepayer in the county electoral area for which he seeks nomination"—put and declared carried.

Section, as amended, put and agreed to.

Section 52 put and agreed to.

SECTION 53.

(Amendment of the Public Health and Local Government Conferences Act, 1885.)

Mr. DOUGLAS

I beg to move:—

Section 53. To add a new sub-section as follows:—

"(2) The amount of any expenses incurred under the Public Health and Local Government (Conferences) Act, 1885, by any local authority other than a sanitary authority shall be paid and charged as part of the general expenses of such local authority in the performance of its duties."

This is largely a drafting amendment, which I put down at the request of the Minister. I understand that under this section as it stands most of the local authorities strike a penny rate for advertising for tourist purposes. The amendment, I am informed, is necessary if the section is to remain part of the Bill, because the section as it stands does not give them power to pay it out of their general expenses, although it does give power to strike a rate. This amendment is necessary if they are to have the power to pay out of the general expenses.

Sir JOHN KEANE

Does this mean that the expense of advertising watering-places shall be apportioned over the whole county?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

If they are expenses incurred under the Public Health and Local Conferences Act, 1885, it does.

Sir JOHN KEANE

If so, I would ask the Seanad not to pass the amendment pending further elucidation at least, because there is considerable objection to rural ratepayers bearing the expense of advertising watering-places situate within a county.

Mr. BURKE

The section as it stands has done that already, apart from the amendment.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Under the section as it stands the Minister says that would be the law without this amendment.

Sir JOHN KEANE

As this matter has escaped notice so far through inadvertence, could it be raised on the Report Stage?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

If on consideration you think there is anything in it, you can bring it up on the Report Stage.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section, as amended, put and agreed to.

SECTION 54.

(1) If any person knowingly acts as a member of a local authority when disqualified, or knowingly votes when prohibited by or under any enactment, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds for each such offence, without prejudice to any other disqualification or penalty therefor.

(2) In a prosecution for an offence under this Act where the fact of the defendant acting as member of a local authority when disqualified or voting when prohibited is proved, before the defendant can rely on the fact that he did not so act or vote knowingly, it shall be necessary for him to prove the same to the satisfaction of the court.

(3) An offence under this section may be prosecuted by or at the suit of the Minister.

Mr. De LOUGHRY

I move:—

Section 54, sub-section (1), page 26. To delete the word "knowingly" in lines 13 and 14.

This sub-section deals with persons acting on councils whilst disqualified. I think the word "knowingly" which occurs twice weakens the whole object. It would be almost impossible to prove that a man "knowingly" acted while disqualified.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I suppose the idea in using the word "knowingly" is that it means once it is brought to his notice.

Mr. De LOUGHRY

That is not quite clear. Sub-section (2) says that if a member is prosecuted it will have to be proved in court that he acted knowingly while he was disqualified.

Mr. BURKE

It is very necessary to have this word "knowingly" in here. There is a rather severe penalty for acting, and in many cases members of local authorities are disqualified without knowing it. For instance, up to quite recently it was not very clearly decided whether a director of a company which had entered into a contract with a local authority would be disqualified from acting on that local authority. He might have acted in that capacity, and would be liable to this severe penalty. For that reason it is necessary to put the word "knowingly" in, and the onus in the particular case is thrown on the defendant to show that he did not act knowingly. In administering the Act, I will do everything in my power to see to it that any member who is disqualified will know that he is disqualified by having a notice hung up in the room where the council meets notifying the conditions under which a person would be disqualified from acting as a Local Government representative. If a great hardship is not to be inflicted, it is necessary to retain the word "knowingly."

Mr. De LOUGHRY

I move:—

Section 54, sub-section (1), line 13. After the word "member" to insert the words "or as an officer."

This section deals with the disqualification of members. I think an officer of a local body who acts illegally should be liable to the same penalties as a member.

Mr. BURKE

I think the obvious remedy in the case of an officer of a local authority guilty under this section will be to have him removed from office. That is the usual procedure, and I do not think it is fair to impose a double penalty on him. He loses his office, which means his livelihood, and he should not also be subject to this penalty. I think there is a great difference between an officer and a member, and I would ask the Senator not to insist on that amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. De LOUGHRY

With regard to the next amendment—Section 54, sub-section (2), to delete the sub-section, we have already dealt with that sub-section and I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. De LOUGHRY

I move:—

Section 54. Page 26. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

"(4) If any person is, after the passing of this Act, convicted of acting as a member or officer of a local authority when disqualified, he shall be disqualified for a period of ten years from the date of such conviction for being elected or appointed to any paid office under or in the gift of any local authority: provided that the disqualification arising under this sub-section may be removed by the Minister certifying under his hand that on full consideration of the circumstances he is satisfied that the disqualification should, either as regards a specified vacant paid office, or generally, not continue, but in any such case as in this proviso mentioned, such certificate as aforesaid shall be forwarded with and form a necessary part of the application of any such person as candidate for any such paid office as aforesaid, and no such person shall be eligible for appointment to any paid office unless such certificate shall have been obtained and forwarded as aforesaid."

As the law stands a member who has been disqualified from membership of a local body may, as far as I know, apply for and be appointed to a paid position on that board. That appears to be a ridiculous position.

Mr. BURKE

I have no objection to accepting the first part of this amendment, but it might, perhaps, require re-drafting. I have a strong objection to accepting the second part, which gives me dispensing power which it would be difficult for me to exercise without criticism. It would be alleged that I acted from all kinds of personal political motives in dispensing people from those conditions, and accordingly I would be strongly opposed to the second part of the amendment. Perhaps the Senator would agree to omitting the second part?

Mr. De LOUGHRY

It is the first part I am interested in. I do not think that a person who is disqualified from serving on a public board should be eligible for appointment to a paid position under that Board.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That means the deletion of all the lines in the amendment from the first five lines down, after the word "authority."

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Section, as amended, put and agreed to.

SECTION 55.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I move:—

Before Section 55 to insert two new sections as follows:—

"55.—No political question unless bearing directly on matters within the jurisdiction of the local authority shall be discussed at any meeting of a county council, board of health, urban district council, borough council, or any committees thereof.

"56.—Should the Minister consider that the provisions of the foregoing section have been contravened at any meeting he shall by order declare the proceedings of such meeting to be null and void but without prejudice to anything done previous to the issue of such order."

I think I am right in saying that a good deal of adverse criticism has been levied at the heads of local government boards, both from within and without the country, owing to the frequent discussion of political matters which have nothing to do with the business of the local authority. If it were possible to put a stop to these discussions, I think the dignity and status of our local bodies would be very much enhanced. I have experienced myself for many years great disquietude by being a member of local bodies where such matters were discussed. So unpleasant was it on many occasions that I quite believe that if only politics could be kept out of local boards far better people would be got to take up the work of local government. To a great extent in the past, and even in the present, these political discussions have been used as a form of pillorying, by which you can brand people's politics in any manner that may be required. It is also used as a form of notoriety or advertisement for any form of political creed. Nothing has a more degrading psychological effect on our local bodies than these political discussions. If an instance were required I would only point to the case last week where the General Council of County Councils, which is supposed to be the corps d'elite of councils, indulged in a discussion of the merits and demerits of certain political prisoners.

If the House would agree with me so far, the only question would be whether an amendment of this kind is likely to be effective, and whether it secures its purpose in the best way. I suggest it would not be wise to prohibit political discussions altogether, simply because the authority of the law would be flouted. They would take place all the same, and you would have to impose special penalties, imprisonment or something of that kind, to enforce the law. That would not be desirable, and would only make martyrs of the people concerned. Under the proposal now before the House the effect would be that if a political resolution, outside matters bearing directly on the business or question within the jurisdiction of their authority is raised, all the other business will be liable to be declared, by the Minister, when he gets the minutes, to be null and void, so that if any political resolution is brought up it will be open to any member to say: "I hope the members present realise that if we pass this resolution we will have to go home, for all the business transacted to-day will be futile and abortive." A wise chairman would say at the beginning of the meeting: "If there are any political resolutions we will take them first, and then we may go home, as nothing further can be done." If a political resolution is not brought up at the beginning of the meeting the chairman could refuse to take it later on. I suggest that the amendment is likely to be effective without making martyrs of these people, who wish to indulge in political propaganda at local boards.

Mr. DOWDALL

I am quite in favour of the object the Senator has in view, but I have some doubt as to whether the method he has adopted is the most effective. The Ministers, of course, are always politicians, and I think the result may possibly be that if a resolution is in agreement with the Minister's political views he may consider it non-political, whereas if it is against the Government he will declare the proceedings null and void. I think these two sections can be drafted into one by adding at the end of the first section: "Any proceedings at such meeting shall be null and void if any of the members present points out that this is a political resolution." otherwise I am afraid that the political resolution will go if the Minister who is in office at the time is in favour of it.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The same would apply to the individual who points it out. He might have his own political views, too.

Mr. DOWDALL

In Ireland, unfortunately, in any assembly, however small, there is a diversity of political views. Therefore one man could always nullify the object of the other by pointing out that it was a political matter.

Mr. BENNETT

In my opinion it would be very hard for an ordinary public body to define the exact moment when matters, say economic, merged into the political. I think that to put this burden on a local authority would create a great amount of chaos. That is what I am afraid of. If I, personally, were asked at a given moment when a discussion on some economic matter was taking place, to say when it passed into the political sphere, I would find it very hard to decide. While wishing that all political discussion should be taboo at public boards, I think it would be very hard, in a country like Ireland, to enforce a regulation of that kind.

Mr. BARRINGTON

Would not the case be met by passing Section 55 and omitting Section 56? You could then leave it to someone, who wished to do so, to move in the courts to have the matter set aside. I assume that lawyers are not politicians, and that they would decide the matter without animus.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I feel that Section 56 is necessary, because, as Senator Bennett has pointed out, there will be cases on the border line. Some of these cases are obviously outside any local jurisdiction, questions about prisoners and those having to do with the boundary. There are questions dealing with rating and valuations which the local authority has a right to discuss, as well as contemplated legislation in respect of these matters. This amendment gives the Minister power to say whether the subject is outside the jurisdiction, and naturally he will give the benefit of the doubt to the local authority. I think we may trust him to do that. It is only when there has been a flagrant breach of Section 56 that he will act. If, as Senator Dowdall says, the Minister cannot be expected to act impartially, well then, I am afraid it is hopeless to expect any government in the country. Ministers do realise their responsibilities apart from party, and act in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Mr. BROWN

The trouble I have about this amendment is this, that while I sympathise very much with the object Senator Sir John Keane has in view, I do not see exactly how we are going to define the evidence on which the Minister is to act. The amendment says: "No political question shall be discussed." Who is to give evidence as to whether or not a political question has been discussed? If you could define the offence at the stage at which the discussion arrived at a resolution and the resolution was put, it would appear on the minute book of the local authority. Then you might have some sort of evidence on which the Minister could act, but without something of that nature I am afraid it is far too vague, though I entirely sympathise with the object Senator Sir John Keane has in view. I am afraid his amendment will not carry out his ideas.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I expect the Minister will act on the evidence in the minutes. On the minutes which come before him at present from local authorities, the Minister frequently disallows their proceedings as regards appointments and other matters. There is a legal duty imposed on the secretary to the local authority to record the proceedings of the meeting on the minutes. My recollection of local authorities is that these political resolutions are always recorded on the minutes.

Mr. BROWN

Once it becomes a resolution and is recorded on the minutes, then, of course, you have the evidence.

Sir JOHN KEANE

That is what I contemplate, that it is only when the Minister has the official minutes that he will act. I am quite prepared to accept any form of words which will make that point clear.

As regards the first part of the amendment, it is, in my opinion, impracticable, because of the definition of politics. In Webster's dictionary, politics is defined as "The science of Government." That is a wide definition enough, unless the Minister invents a new one, and if he does invent a new one I suggest it should be added to the section of definitions in the Bill. The amendment, desirable as it is, will simply give new employment to a set of gentlemen who will proceed to drive a coach-and-four through it, because without moving any resolution at all they can discuss all the politics they want to.

One can always, I believe, break the law and, by following the example of certain exalted and eminent lawyers, keep just within the limit. To pass this amendment will simply act as a sort of challenge to those whose object will be to discuss politics after the new councils are elected and who, perhaps, would not have any great incentive to do that unless this amendment were inserted. I believe that the amendment, if inserted, would act as an incentive and an encouragement to such people and that they would claim it as a triumph over the Oireachtas every time they were able to break through it. Many of them would like to nullify many things done at the meetings by discussing politics or moving a resolution. It is always easy to move a resolution at the end of a meeting, although no previous notice of it had been given. It is easy to foresee the number of ways in which this could be availed of and that quite a lot of chaos could be created. I had hoped that we would have been able to adopt something which would prevent politics being discussed at the meetings of public bodies, but when you come to put that in practice you find it an exceedingly difficult question. There is no reason why a controversy on religious subjects should not also be prohibited. Yet we would never think of putting in an amendment to that effect. I take it that there is a certain code of duties which these bodies are elected to perform, and that it is within the judgment of any chairman to say that a certain resolution is out of order. You must allow him a certain amount of discretion in matters of that kind, and we must have little faith in Irish humanity if we believe that many of these boards are going to be the fiasco that some of them were in the past.

Mr. CUMMINS

I think the harm some Senators appear to see as coming from political discussions at meetings is greatly exaggerated. On such questions as contemplated legislation, for instance, the medium of expression that could give information would be those very bodies that might have political discussions. There would be such discussions and they would be very useful. But if this amendment is passed the Government of the day would be deprived of a great source of knowledge that would ordinarily come to them through these public representative bodies. I think the harm done by political discussion is greatly exaggerated. Where a proper chairman is elected to such local bodies it should be in his discretionary powers to rule such matters out of order if he thinks they are out of order. If the chairman of such meeting wants the business concluded satisfactorily, and if he is a business man, he will rule anything of an irrelevant character out of order, and will not allow it to be discussed, and the business will be transacted properly. I am quite in sympathy with Senator Sir John Keane on ruling out political discussion if that were possible. But I think it is impossible.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

I am very much in sympathy with the amendment and especially the first part of it, because I see, from the change that has come over the country, that there is no longer the same occasion for the number of speeches and debates which in the local bodies were often a complete waste of time. If the powers were placed in the hands of the chairman to decide whether a resolution proposed was political or not, and to refuse to sanction it, if it was political, although he might not, perhaps, have the courage on all occasions to exercise his discretionary powers, he would see at any rate that the country, if this Bill is passed, did not wish to see the local powers conferred on local bodies made use of for purposes other than those for which they were conferred. It is to be hoped that after the next general election of members to local bodies it will be found that the decision of the electors did not depend on what political party the candidates belonged to, but rather that candidates will be chosen for their business efficiency.

In that case there ought to be some way, at any rate, of showing the disapproval of the country, assuming this Bill is approved of by the country, of the waste of time which often happened at these boards in the past in discussions upon matters which were really outside the functions of county councils or boards of guardians or district councils and have frequently occupied the time of such bodies. I certainly will support the first part of the amendment. The suggestion that the Minister should penalise the work of the councils by rendering nugatory all their efforts to do business because what he might consider a political resolution had been passsd would, I think, be a great mistake and would place the Minister in an extremely difficult position.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I am not committed exactly to the form of the amendment. If I cannot get the whole thing, then the suggestion of Senator Sir N. Everard would be better than nothing. I am perplexed that so many should be in sympathy with the object of my amendment who despair of any practical method being discovered to make it effective. I do not believe legislation is quite so bankrupt as all that. We passed legislation recently purporting and claiming to do far more difficult things, the cleaning out and renovating of small dairies in the country and also legislation purporting, if adopted, to give enormously increased revenues to certain industries. I firmly believe that this provision, if tried, would be found to be quite effective. After all, if it was not effective or fully effective it rests entirely with the Minister. He can apply it as strictly or as liberally as he likes. I do not think the Minister should shirk his responsibility. He has taken far greater responsibility and he has attempted more difficult things, such as the dissolution of bodies like corporations and county councils. It should not be difficult for him to exercise a wise discretion in matters of this kind.

Mr. FORAN

We all know that old customs die hard, and this thing of political discussions at public boards is not a matter of to-day or yesterday. They have been handed on to us by people who monopolised those boards in the old days. Opposition and discussion are the principal phases of political life. Consequently, the people to-day who occupy those boards are not so much to blame for remembering that this thing has gone on for generations at public boards, and, as I said, we know that old customs die hard. If to-morrow or any other time any public board introduced a discussion on Protection versus Free Trade I submit that that would be a political discussion. Now, where is the present Minister or his successor going to draw the line between what is political and what is not political? Even Senator Sir John Keane, with all his ability, would find himself taxed to decide where it begins and where it ends. Consequently I believe the thing is impracticable and ought to be withdrawn. It cannot be remedied in the way suggested by the amendment. Every person who thinks at all would like to see more practical discussion and less of the windy man.

Mr. IRWIN

While in sympathy with the main object of the amendment, I do not see how it could be carried into practice. The same necessity will not now arise for political discussions as heretofore. Heretofore these political discussions were mainly carried on by boards of guardians and rural district councils, and both these bodies will now be dissolved, and they inherited that very bad practice from the old Grand Juries.

The EARL of MAYO

I agree with what Senator Sir John Keane said, but how it is to be put into practice I cannot see. The Minister has already stated that according to the amendment he would have to decide what is a political question. That will be putting upon him a tremendous responsibility. Senator Sir John Keane said "the Minister is shirking his responsibility." Well, he has got this Bill, which will soon become an Act, and he has got to see it carried out, and I do not envy him that task, if he carries it out in the proper manner. I do not think he will be shirking any responsibility. You may as well try to stop the currents and the tide in Dublin Bay as to stop my countrymen talking politics whenever they are assembled together. As one of the Labour Senators said, other generations have done it and it will continue. I cannot possibly see how, in an Act of Parliament, you are going to prevent people from talking, for that is what it amounts to.

Let them do their business first. If a resolution came forward the chairman could say: "I am bound to accept the resolution if the Standing Orders are suspended." I know if I were chairman of the meeting I would have to accept it. I hope Senator Sir John Keane will not press this amendment, because it looks as if the meaning of it was that we are to hold our tongues about politics. We are not going to hold our tongues about politics. Certainly not. In every generation we talk politics and we are going to talk politics whenever we gather together on any occasion.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

If I may say one word to correct what Senator the Earl of Mayo said, as to the impossibility of preventing political discussion, the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society and others that I know of have a rule that no political or sectarian discussion should be allowed at meetings. I have never known that rule broken. Consequently men of all classes and sections in these organisations have met together at friendly meetings and discharged the business of these bodies. We need not look forward to the danger of the chairman's ruling being nullified. I certainly think that it would give the chairman added authority if he could point to a resolution as being against the regulations, and I am sure he would be supported by the majority.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I was wondering whether in view of the general feeling expressed by the House Senators would like to have some useful legislation on that matter that would meet the difficulty. The chairman on these bodies has, I believe, power to rule out discussion, but he is not required to do so. It is an invidious task to put upon him, and he may hesitate about doing it. If a clause of this kind were inserted, it might be useful: "It shall be the duty of the presiding chairman of every county council, public health board, urban district council, borough council or committee thereof to rule out of order any question, discussion or resolution which, in his opinion, is of a political nature and does not bear directly on any matter within the jurisdiction or control of such county council," etc.

Mr. KENNY

He would very soon find himself without a quorum.

Colonel MOORE

I think it very much better to leave this business alone.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think that is very likely, Senator.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question—"That Sections 55 and 56 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 57.

(1) In this section the expression "county authority" means a county council, a board of health, or a committee or joint committee of a district lunatic asylum, and the expression "authorised committee" means a committee appointed by a county authority and to the members of which the Minister, on the application of the county authority, authorises contributions to be paid under this section.

(2) Every county authority shall as soon as may be after the 31st day of March and the 30th day of September in each year pay to—

(a) every member of the county authority who has attended at least three-quarters of the meetings of such county authority held during the preceding six months, and

(b) to every member of an authorised committee appointed by the county authority who has attended at least three-quarters of the meetings of that authorised committee held during the preceding six months,

such contribution (if any) as is authorised by the rules contained in the Fifth Schedule of this Act towards the expenses incurred by such member in attending the meetings of such county authority or authorised committee (as the case may be) during such preceding six months.

(3) For the purposes of this section a member shall not be deemed to have attended a meeting unless he shall have been present at such meeting for at least three hours, or where such meeting was held only for a period less than three hours, during the whole of such period.

(4) No contribution shall be paid under this section in respect of any meeting of a county authority or committee thereof which took place before the election of members to such county authority held next after the passing of this Act.

(5) Any person who knowingly makes or allows to be made a false statement for the purpose of obtaining the payment to himself or another of a sum under or in pursuance of this section, shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or at the discretion of the court to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding one year.

(6) Any person who is convicted of an offence under this section shall thereafter be disqualified from being elected or being a member of any local authority and from being appointed to or holding any office or employment under any local authority.

Amendment 113 not moved.

Mr. KENNY

I beg to move Amendment 114:—

Section 57, sub-section (2). To delete the words from and including the word "the" up to and including the word "year" in line 13, and to substitute therefor the words "each meeting," and to delete in paragraph (a) all the words from and including the word "at" in line 16 to the word "months" in line 17, and substitute therefor the words "such meeting." To delete all from and including the words "at least" in line 19, paragraph (b), to the end of the paragraph, and to substitute therefor the words "such meeting," and in lines 25-26 to delete the words "during such preceding six months."

Shortly, the meaning of this amendment, which is a General Council's amendment, is that members should be paid, at the close of each meeting or as soon after as possible, the amount provided in Schedule 5 for travelling expenses. Under the Bill as it stands payment appears to be deferred for the whole six months, and a member would have to have attended at least three-fourths of the meetings of such county authorities as shall be held during the preceding six months. You can imagine instances which may arise, that with the very best intentions a member may not succeed in having attended three-fourths of the meetings. It may happen there may be sickness or there may be enforced absence on the part of the members. I think it would be bad, if, in view of these contingencies, he would be debarred from getting the expenses due to him. In selection boards, Departmental Committees or Consultative Committees appointed by the Minister, the practice is that the members attending the meetings send in an account of their expenses and these accounts are dealt with before the next meeting and payments forwarded to them. Why that principle should be departed from here is not very clear to the General Council of County Councils. That is the reason why this amendment is submitted to the Seanad asking that members attending county councils should be paid such expenses as they are entitled to be paid to them straight away, and that the words I have mentioned should be deleted from the Bill so that the members who attend should be paid such expenses as they are entitled to on forwarding their accounts.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Does it not come to this, that you propose that they should be paid for their attendance at each meeting and that the payment should be made as soon as possible after the conclusion of the meeting?

Mr. KENNY

That is so.

Mr. BURKE

There was an amendment somewhat similar to this amendment in the Dáil, and I opposed it. The object of this section, or the principal object of it, is to try to ensure better attendance at the meetings of local bodies. I think, sir, that you in another capacity, delivered a very famous judgment on this matter, in which you used rather strong strictures with regard to non-attendance of members of local bodies. It is common knowledge that in the past, and even at the present time, the attendance at these meetings is very poor. Under this section, payment will not be made to members unless they attend three-quarters of the meetings. Payment will not be made at the end of the six months unless they have attended three-quarters of the meetings. This will ensure that the man who carries out his duties in an honourable and efficient manner will be paid, and the man who neglects his business and who only turns up when appointments are about being made will not be paid. The effect of Senator Kenny's amendment would probably be to stimulate this present tendency to turn up only when matters of a pecuniary interest are involved, and to neglect the ordinary duties of the council. The section as it stands is a very good protection against that kind of conduct, and for that reason I ask the Seanad not to accept the amendment.

Mr. KENNY

I wish to say that this matter was brought before the General Council of the County Councils, and when I put the matter before them I was asked why should not the same principle as was in the Bill apply to the personnel of the Dáil and Seanad.

Mr. BENNETT

It seems to me on reading Section 6 of the Fifth Schedule that the expenses to which a member would be entitled under this section would rarely exceed 6/8. The member will be paid 4d. for each mile of the journey from his residence to the place of meeting travelled by railway, and 5d. for each mile of journey otherwise travelled. In my opinion, it is a perfect farce. I think it would be much better either to raise these munificent sums or drop the whole thing altogether.

Amendment put and negatived.

Mr. KENNY

I beg to move:—

Section 57, sub-section (2). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "and such further payment in respect of subsistence allowance and loss of remunerative time as is authorised by regulations to be made by the Minister."

This is a rather different proposition from the last amendment, and Senator Bennett has expressed the view already that finds favour with a good many, namely, that the expenses allowed to members of a county council are so trivial that they either should be deleted entirely or increased. That was also the view of the General Council— namely, that the expenses allowed under the Bill as it stands do not represent any appreciable part of the expenses of the members attending these councils and committees. The members of the General Council would much prefer that the expenses should be left out entirely rather than that they should be dealt with in a meagre and halfhearted way. They went further and said: "Why not be allowed, in addition, the same expenses as were allowed to members of Consultative Councils?" I think you will find, already, that members of Consultative Councils are allowed travelling expenses, and subsistence allowance, and some amount to repay for the loss of their time in attending these councils. The members attending the county councils suffer from a similar disability. They pay their railway fare. That part of their expenses from their residence to the place of meeting is to be repaid, but the subsistence allowance is not provided for, nor is there an equivalent for the loss of time in their own business. This is an inconsistency they find fault with. They are doing public business the same as the consultative committees. They are doing the work of the public. The principle is held so far as the members of consultative or selection boards and departmental committees are concerned they should not be at any personal loss for doing the business they are called upon to do. They are unable to understand why that principle is departed from in their case. They are doing not only committee work but administrative work of a very important character. I have been asked to submit this amendment in the hope that the Minister may be brought to accept it.

Mr. BURKE

The provisions in this section for the payment of expenses are not very liberal. I am prepared to admit that. Yet they are something novel. Heretofore those members of local authorities received no out-of-pocket expenses of any kind, and this is a considerable step forward. It is much easier to increase that sum as we go along than to take from it. It is much better to begin quietly, and not to go too far in the beginning. There is a great difference between members attending the Oireachtas or members attending a Consultative Council, and members attending the local council. The latter are within a few hours' journey of the place of meeting. They rarely stay there longer than one day, and there is no reason why they should get subsistence allowance. As a general rule they are able to fit in meetings of their council with business of their own. As a general rule these meetings are held on market days and every possible attempt is made to facilitate members in that way. I think it is a very big thing to get the principle accepted to pay those members at all. If we go too far now the whole principle may collapse. I think it is better to adopt the motto, "Hasten slowly," in this matter.

Amendment put and negatived.

Mr. BUTLER

I beg to move:—

Section 57, sub-section (4). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "nor for attendance at any such meeting aforesaid to any member who proposes or votes for any political resolution."

I agree with the provision in this Bill for the payment of members of the county council. As the Bill stands at present it is possible for the county council to call a special meeting for the purpose of considering a political resolution, and, as far as I can gather, the Minister is bound to sanction payment of expenses in such a case. I do not think that was ever intended. I think the Minister should have power to refuse sanction for the payment for attendance at such meetings.

Mr. BENNETT

I quite agree. I would think very little of a politician who was not prepared to pay from 1/8 to, say, 6/8 for attending a political meeting. I think the politician who would be impertinent enough to say, "I am not prepared to forfeit 1/8 for my expenses attending a political meeting," is not much good to any Party.

Mr. O'FARRELL

There is one point in this, and that is, that this is rather an assumption that politics are to be discussed at such meetings. Politics should be far from the business of the meeting.

Mr. FARREN

If a councillor comes to attend a meeting of a local body and the ordinary business is transacted, and, during the course of the meeting, somebody springs a political matter, does the member lose his expenses for attending such a meeting?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Yes, if he proposes the resolution.

Mr. FARREN

think this is a small matter.

Mr. BURKE

I am in agreement with the principle of this amendment. There may be some difficulty in ascertaining what is a political resolution and what is not a political resolution. I think we could accept it. Senator Bennett has drawn attention to the fact that it is a very poor politician that would not give 1/8 for his own opinion. Under the section it is quite possible that if a member did not get credit for one particular meeting he may get below the three-fourths necessary and might, therefore, lose all his expenses for the six months. That would be something more than 1/8.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Question—"That Section 57, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Question—"That Section 58 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 59.

Mr. De LOUGHRY

I move:—

I do not know if that is exactly the same as the case that I make out, where an urban district has a library for years and the rural area immediately surrounding the town might like to take advantage of that library. In such a case as that the county council should be in the position to make terms with the urban district on behalf of the rural area. I take it there would have to be an agreement with the town in which the library is situated. The whole matter would be rendered much clearer if my amendment were adopted.

Mr. BURKE

I understand that that power is contained in this Bill, combined with the Public Libraries Act. To accept the amendment would only lead to overlapping.

Amendment put and negatived.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

It might be worth your while, Senator, if you are interested in this matter, to look into it further. If necessary I will allow you to bring it up again on Report. At present I am disposed to think that one particular point you have in mind is not provided for. On a very cursory examination, it seems to me that the matter you are anxious to accomplish is not covered by antecedent legislation. Satisfy yourself on that subject between this and the Report Stage.

Question—"That Section 59 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Question—"That Section 60 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Mr. O'ROURKE

I beg to move:—

After Section 60 to insert a new section as follows:—

61. It shall be lawful for the Minister in such cases as he may think fit to grant to any new buildings erected on old disused sites or to any existing factories or warehouses which owing to their dangerous condition are in need of repair, immunity from re-valuation for a period of five years after the erection or rebuilding has been completed.

The effect of this new section would be to reduce the number of sites that are vacant in many parts of the country and it will encourage building. We all admit that it is something of a shame to see the sites in O'Connell Street remaining vacant. No effort is being made to rebuild there. In rural areas there are many sites in a somewhat similar condition and it would be very desirable indeed if building could be encouraged. I believe the effect of this amendment would be to encourage builders to proceed with the erection of houses. We have a precedent for this in the Housing Act, where there is a provision giving relief in the matter of rates over a period of twenty years. In the Westminster Parliament they inserted a clause somewhat similar to mine in the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Powers) Act, and it extended over a period of twelve years. I think everything possible should be done to encourage building. What I suggest in this connection might also apply to factories in want of repair. Quite a number of people are at present adverse to spending money on repairs. If, however, they were aware that they would be relieved of rates for some years, they might be induced to proceed with any necessary work.

Mr. FARREN

Senator O'Rourke is misinterpreting the Dublin Reconstruction Act, I think. The Act of 1916, or even any later Act, does not do what he says it does. It gives power to the effect that the valuation shall not be increased for twelve years. It is quite a different thing in the matter of rates. The position is that if the premises were rebuilt they would not be revalued at a higher valuation for a specified number of years.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

There is nothing about relief of rates in Senator O'Rourke's amendment. It deals only with relief from re-valuation. It does not propose relief from rates. The Senator is following the analogy in the Dublin Reconstruction Act in regard to immunity from revaluation. That is all he proposes.

Mr. MORAN

As one who had something to do with the Act of 1916, I would like to point out what actually happened. That Act was, naturally, opposed by the residents of the street, because we wanted a better type of building than the old building and we had to concede something. One of the things we conceded was a total remission of the first year's rates after reconstruction, and a guarantee that for the subsequent eleven years the rating of the premises would not exceed the rating of the destroyed premises; that is, the valuation would not be affected. A good many members in the Council Chamber objected, but I thought it was a good bargain inasmuch as we were building up a huge reserve fund. In a year or two all these premises will be revalued at possibly three times the existing valuation.

Mr. HAUGHTON

I desire to support the amendment. It would be a very good thing if this were adopted, and accepted by the Minister. There are many discouragements nowadays to house-building, the Rent Restriction Act and the Town Tenants' agitation all largely preventing enterprising people from going into building on a large scale. I am aware that in some parts of England and Wales building societies, that were originally started in a small way, have now grown to immense proportions. This is all because an undertaking was given to those about to start building on a substantial scale that there would be no charge for rates whatever over a specified number of years. If that policy were adopted in the twenty-six counties, a great change would take place in the building trade.

Mr. O'DEA

Mr. O'ROURKE

With your permission I will withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 60 agreed to.

Mr. De LOUGHRY

I beg to move:

Section 61. Before Section 61 to insert a new section as follows:—

"61.—(1) It is hereby declared that the issue or intended issue of an advertisement inviting or affording opportunities of applications for appointment to a paid office under or in the gift of a local authority and appointing a time for election of a person being one of those so applying, casts upon every member of that local authority a duty of being free to exercise his judgment and discretion at the time of such election by voting for such of the applicants as he shall then think fit, and that accordingly the giving by any member, or the soliciting by any person from any member, of any promise or undertaking to vote for any particular candidate or intended candidate at such election constitutes a breach of public duty on the part of such member or person (as the case may be).

(2) Any person who

(i) gives or solicits any such promise or undertaking as aforesaid; or

As the feeling of the House seems to be against the amendment, I wish to withdraw it.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Apparently, then, it is to be considered on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SECTION 61.

(1) No person shall hold any office of profit under or be employed for remuneration by or under any local authority from and after the holding of the election or appointment of members to such local authority held next after the passing of this Act while he is or within twelve months after he has ceased to be a member of such local authority, or of any other local authority whose functional area is, or is situate in, the same county or county borough as that of or within which is situate the functional area of such local authority or, save with reference to and sanction of the Minister, in any county or county borough adjoining to that county or county borough.

Mr. LINEHAN

I move:

To delete the words "save with reference to the sanction of the Minister."

The result would be that disqualification will be absolute in reference to the adjoining counties or county boroughs, and that it will not be left to the sanction of the Minister.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I understand that the Minister is satisfied to accept this, Senator.

Amendment put, and agreed to.

Section 61, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 62.

(1) The Minister may at any time if he thinks fit, order a local inquiry into the performance of its duties by any local authority, and Article 32 of the Schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, shall apply to every such local inquiry.

(2) If and whenever—

(a) the Minister is satisfied, after the holding of such a local inquiry as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section, that the duties of a local authority are not being duly and effectually discharged by such legal authority, or

(b) a local authority wilfully neglects to comply with any lawful order, direction, or regulation of the Minister, or

(d) a local authority refuses after due notice to allow its accounts to be audited by an auditor of the Minister,

the Minister may, by order, dissolve such local authority, and either order (under the power hereinafter conferred on him) a new election of members of such local authority or transfer the property and the several powers and duties of such local authority to any body or persons or person he shall think fit.

(3) Whenever the Minister makes an order under this section dissolving a local authority, he may appoint such and so many persons as he shall think fit to perform the duties of such local authority, and may from time to time remove all or any such persons and appoint others in their place, and may fix the tenure of office, duties, and remuneration of all such persons.

(4) The remuneration of all persons appointed under the foregoing sub-section shall be paid out of the revenue of such local authority as part of its expenses.

(5) Not later than three years after a local authority has been dissolved under this section the Minister shall by order cause a new election of members of such local authority to be held, and upon the completion of such new election all the property, powers, and duties of the dissolved local authority shall vest in the body so elected, notwithstanding that the same may have been transferred by the Minister under this section to any other body, persons, or person.

(6) The Minister may from time to time by order do all such things and make all such regulations as in his opinion shall be necessary for giving full effect to any order made by him under this section.

(7) Every order made by the Minister or by the Minister for Local Government under Section 12 of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923 (No. 9 of 1923) shall, notwithstanding the repeal of that section by this Act, continue in force as if such order had been made by the Minister under this section, and the provisions of this section shall apply to every such order as if the same had been made under this section.

Mr. McLOUGHLIN

I move:—

Before Section 62 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Where after the passing of this Act a local authority passes a resolution either appointing a person to be an officer of that local authority or increasing the salary or emoluments of an officer of that local authority, such resolution

(a) shall have no effect until such person or officer shall within one month after the date of such resolution have made and subscribed a declaration in accordance with this section, and

(b) shall be wholly void if such person or officer fails to make and subscribe such declaration within such period of one month.

(2) The declaration to be made as aforesaid by such person or officer as aforesaid shall be made and subscribed by him before a Peace Commissioner and shall be in the following form:—

The............................. (set out the name of the local authority) having on the day of 19, passed a resolution appointing me A.B. to the office of........................ (or increasing my salary or emoluments as...............................as the case may require), I, the said A.B., do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare that I will bear allegiance to the Irish Free State and its constitution as by law established and that, in the event of such appointment being (or whether such increase is or is not as the case may require) confirmed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health I will to the best of my judgment and ability duly and faithfully perform the duties of the (or my as the case may require) said office and will observe and obey such orders and directions in relation to such duties as shall lawfully be given to me.

(3) Nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect the operation of any enactment requiring the sanction or confirmation of any such resolution as aforesaid by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.

I wish to make a slight alteration in the amendment, after the word "Act" in the first line to put in the words "or within a period of twelve months prior to the passing thereof." I hope that this will commend itself to the Seanad, because very few Senators can be unaware of the number of public officials who are acting in a spirit of hostility to the State, who are doing their utmost to decry and undermine it. In fact, in some parts of the country this amounts to a public scandal. It is one of the causes of the uneasiness and insecurity which prevents the country from making that progress towards stability that we would desire. One of the most damaging effects on the morale of the ordinary people and one that tends to destroy the sense of civic spirit is to see officials occupying prominent positions in the State who are at the same time spouting treason and spreading insidious propaganda against the State. I suggest it is time that some effort was made to curb the activities of these officials and to make them realise that they cannot have it both ways, that they cannot draw salaries from the State and at the same time try to upset it.

Mr. KENNY

I support the amendment, which I think should commend itself to everybody. If at the time a man seeks an appointment he has it in his mind or in his heart to undermine the interests of his employer or to act in a spirit counter to them, it is most dishonourable and dishonest. Even if he had not these intentions at the time of seeking this employment, if afterwards he allows himself to be suborned, and acts in a spirit hostile to his employer, and particularly in such a grave matter as undermining the foundations upon which the State or the Government rests, it is more serious still, and his honest and honourable duty would be, if his convictions or point of view changed, to resign his office and seek employment elsewhere.

To take advantage of holding that office, and having facilities for discovering secrets of Government departments, and making use of those for propaganda outside tending to discredit and undermine the Government, should not be tolerated for one instant. I term that not only dishonest and dishonourable, but almost criminal in the circumstances in which this country finds itself at the moment. I feel confident this amendment will commend itself to the Seanad.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

What words did you propose to insert, Senator McLoughlin?

Mr. McLOUGHLIN

"Where after the passing of this Act, or within a period of 12 months prior to the passing thereof."

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You will want to change the word "passes" into "has passed." They could not pass now a resolution prior to the 12 months.

Mr. McLOUGHLIN

I will not insist on the alteration.

Colonel MOORE

I oppose this amendment. We have too many oaths and pledges in this country. We must allow people some freedom of opinion. I am entirely opposed to pledges. The people who make most pledges are those who break most pledges. These pledges have always been a failure. Since they were invented 60 or 70 years ago you have had a series of broken pledges, and the less pledges we have the better. People who take pledges sometimes change their minds and forget them.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I am inclined to agree with Senator Colonel Moore. The British tried this method of imposing oaths of allegiance and everyone will agree that they were a hopeless failure. We have condemned the exacting in Northern Ireland of an oath from people holding public offices. These are not Government positions in the strict sense of the word at all. An oath taken under duress is of very little value, and many a man in order to keep his family will take the oath under duress, but it is not going to bind his conscience afterwards. I do not think people should be put up against a position of that kind. If we are not able to induce allegiance to the State by voluntary methods, we are not going to do it by the imposition of an oath. I think we are virtually passing a vote of no confidence in the stability of the State and its continued existence by proposing an amendment of this kind. The moral effect of it is not going to be in the interests of the State and its direct effect will be absolutely nugatory.

Dr. GOGARTY

It is not so much the imposition of the oath that counts as the putting an end to the position of the hero who wants to have it both ways and the effect the taking of the oath will have on his heroics in various parts of the country. There are, to my own knowledge, one or two men drawing salaries from the Government who parade themselves in the West of Ireland as people looking for a Republic and doing this as a sort of afterthought. At the same time they are receiving their salaries. If the finger that points at oath-takers can also point at them it will be impossible for them to keep up this deception. There are certain persons who make a great to-do about this matter, as if the oath taken now were not for the benefit of the people of the country.

It is no longer a parallel to speak of the imposition of an oath on that section of people in the North who do not regard themselves as permanently within its borders. This oath taken by the officials employed by the Free State that they will be loyal to the Free State will prevent their undermining the Free State and inflicting injury on everyone in it. That effect we will get by making it incumbent on every official or employee to take an oath to give good service and not to promote insecurity. I am not at all anxious that anyone should take an oath against his will. It is not so much for the sake of the oath as for defining the position of the man employed by the State, who is against the State, that I support Senator McLoughlin. If a man parades as a Republican from any form of confused mentality—arising, perhaps, from the intermediate system —if he parades as one who tries to injure the hand that feeds him, the hypocrisy will be apparent, because it will be in the region of dishonesty.

Mr. BURKE

I am strongly in favour of this amendment, and I think Senator Gogarty has put his finger on the right spot when he says it is not so much aimed at the political views of these people as against their dishonesty. There are a number of people parading in the country as being opponents of the Government and of the system of local authority operating under the Government, and yet they are drawing money which they could not draw but for the fact that the Government is functioning. This will make them come forward and state whether they are in favour of existing conditions or not. They may take the oath and say they take it under duress, but if they do they can only masquerade as a very poor type of hero. A man who masquerades as a hero and is afraid to give up his position in order to support his opinion is not going to get much support. I am placed in a difficult position as Minister for Local Government in sanctioning the appointments of men who all along are trying to obstruct the work of the Government. Take the instance of a county surveyor who happens to be opposed to the present Government. When grants are given, complaints are made to me that the grants are being frittered away and that the county surveyor is not trying to get the best results out of the money granted. I am not in a position to take action against that individual. The same thing applies to rate collectors and others. This will define clearly the position of these people. If they accept a post under the Government and take this oath, they cannot masquerade as great heroes, and that will be to the advantage of the general public.

Mr. FARREN

This declaration is to apply to persons about to be appointed, or a person about to receive some increase of salary, or something else like that. That is not going to meet the case at all. It is only dealing with some people who may be going into the service or who, already in the service, are entitled to some emolument or promotion. I do not believe in those declarations, and I suggest that what is needed in this country more than anything else is a little Christian charity. I think the time has arrived when instead of aggravating the position, we should try to heal the sore, and I say that if you pass this, you will have more trouble. A similar attempt to this was made by the British Government when they were in occupation, and we know the effect of it was that a few men refused to take the oath, but the great bulk of the civil servants took the oath, even though they did not believe in it. A few men did not take the oath, because their conscience would not allow them, but they were very few, and you could count them on the fingers of your hands.

I read last week in connection with the Northern Government that a Catholic chaplain of some hospital, because he refused to make a declaration which was against his conscience, was refused the salary he was entitled to. Somebody says, "Quite right." I say, "Quite wrong." You employ a person to do certain work. You do not employ him because of his particular brand of politics. You employ him because of his efficiency in carrying out certain work, and not because he is prepared to take certain oaths.

I am satisfied, from my experience, that the people who take the oath would not be half as good servants as the people who would not take the oath, and I think that at this time of day there is no use in adding more fuel to the fire. We have had sufficient trouble in this country without coming along and taking a man's bread and butter from him because he differs politically with us.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

I do not know whether Senator Farren has read the amendment. It simply declares: "I ... do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare that I will bear allegiance to the Irish Free State and its constitution as by law established." Surely, he does not suggest—and I hope nobody will suggest—that a man who will not sign that declaration should continue to receive money from the State or from a local body. It is very sad that it should be necessary, but I am afraid from what we have heard of the state of affairs in some parts of Ireland, that it is necessary. It is a blot on the Bill for the reason that it must refer to a transitory state of things, but it is necessary in order to prevent various officials from receiving pay and boasting of their disloyalty.

Mr. BARRINGTON

Senator Farren can hardly have read the amendment.

Mr. FARREN

I did.

Mr. BARRINGTON

He talks of depriving a man of his bread and butter. There is nothing in the amendment calling for the dismissal of a man who does not make the declaration. It is not a case of throwing out a man already in a job, but it is designed for the man selected for a new job, and for the man receiving an increase of salary or emoluments. Where a man has done his work very efficiently, he is entitled to an increase. But if the man is plotting against the interests of the State, surely he is not entitled to an increase. You are not depriving a man of his job.

Mr. FORAN

I wish to oppose this amendment on very well defined grounds. To me, the imposition of this declaration on any man is tyrannical and reactionary. A man may be an efficient county surveyor or other servant of the local authority, and may not quite agree with the Free State or the present Government as the be all and end all. As one great man said, "No man can put a boundary to the march of a nation." Consequently, I think the introduction of an amendment on those lines is most reactionary.

The Minister made a great case in connection with a county surveyor who differs with the present Government. He may be a competent county surveyor, but he may not agree with things as they are. I hope the majority will never agree with things as they are, and that they will always look ahead. If a man does not agree with the present condition of things, he is to be branded as an outlaw and denied the emoluments which may be allotted to him by the council in authority over him.

Colonel MOORE

I would like to ask the Minister if it is anticipated that certain people to whom he objects now, and to whom the Senators object, may in a very short time be in a majority here? If you impose a pledge or an oath on people when you are in power, they may impose a pledge, too, when they are in power. In what position would we all be then?

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

"As by law established."

Colonel MOORE

You will find yourselves in a very unpleasant position. It may be "law established" the other way. I am not prepared to swear one way one minute and another way another minute. I know those oaths have been unsatisfactory and of no use. Probably the first pledge taken in this country was taken about seventy years ago. At a meeting of Irish Members of Parliament they pledged themselves to certain things we need not go into now. One Member said he did not believe in pledges and that they were generally broken. It happened just one year after that he was able to get up and say that the pledge was broken by all except himself. He was the only man who kept the pledge. We are here to make friends with all people and not to make ourselves objectionable to them by forcing our opinions down their throats. The effect of this oath will be the throwing out of honest men and the putting in of dishonest ones. Dishonest men will take oaths of any kind, but honest men will not take them and are left out.

Mr. McLOUGHLIN

In spite of the dire predictions of Senator Moore, I hope the Seanad will pass the amendment. Nobody listening to Senator Moore and the other Senators opposing the amendment would ever dream that they took an oath themselves. I do not see why others should not follow their good example and take a declaration of allegiance.

The great objection against this declaration is that the British insisted on it and that Northern Ireland insisted on it. The circumstances are quite different. This country repudiated British rule. The Parliament of Northern Ireland is a body which repudiates the idea of an Irish nation. It is an exotic creation, for the establishment of which not a single Irish Member voted, and therefore not a single Irishman owes it allegiance. But it is quite a different proposition when the Free State is the creation of the majority will of the Irish people. In asking these officials to take an oath of allegiance to the Free State, we are only asking them to take an oath to the sovereign authority of the Irish people.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Before the Seanad passes the amendment, as I presume it will, I would ask them to contemplate the absurdity of having one set of officials oath-bound—the people whose fidelity is really questioned—and another set of officials absolutely free. Those officials who are coming in will be oath-bound, but those officials who are in and whose bona fides are questioned will be free.

A SENATOR

Give them an increase.

Mr. De LOUGHRY

I would like to know if we could amend the marginal note to Section 62. The note at present is "Power to dissolve a local authority." That is objectionable. I suggest that it should be "Power to hold local inquiries and power to dissolve a local authority." This Section does more than give the Minister power to dissolve a local authority. It gives power to hold a local inquiry and it is not to be assumed that local authorities do not desire inquiries when necessary.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The marginal note, you suggest, should read, "Power to dissolve a local authority and power to hold a local inquiry." My recollection is—I speak subject to the correction of Senator Brown—that the marginal note has been held to be no part of the Act. It is merely an ornament or a disfigurement, as the case may be.

Mr. De LOUGHRY

I am satisfied if the Minister will consider the matter.

Amendment by Senator McLoughlin put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 9.

Tá

William Barrington.
T. W. Bennett.
S. Brown, K.C.
Mrs. Costello.
P. De Loughry.
Countess of Desart.
J. C. Dowdall.
Sir Nugent Everard.
Oliver St. John Gogarty.
Sir John Griffith.
Benjamin Haughton.
C. J. Irwin.
Sir John Keane.
P. W. Kenny.
Thomas Linehan.
J. C. Love.
Edward MacEvoy.
John MacLoughlin.
James Moran.
Michael O'Dea.
Bernard O'Rourke.
William O'Sullivan.
Earl of Wicklow.

Níl

William Cummins.
Michael Duffy.
Sir Thomas Esmonde.
Thomas Farren.
Thomas Foran.
Douglas Hyde.
Colonel Moore.
John T. O'Farrell.
Mrs. Wyse Power.

Amendment declared carried.

Mr. FARREN

I beg to move:

Section 62, sub-section (5). In line 40 to delete the words "three years" and to substitute therefor the words "one year."

The object of the amendment is, in the event of the Minister having to exercise his powers for the purpose of dissolving a local body, that within a period of one year an election shall be held for the purpose of electing the local authority. I think that is a reasonable amendment. Under the Bill at present if the Minister dissolves a local authority the people are disfranchised for three years, and the duties of the public authority will be carried out by some person appointed by the Minister. For three years the people who are paying the piper are deprived of the privilege of calling the tune. In other words, the people of a local area are deprived for three years of deciding who should conduct their local affairs. That is a reasonable amendment, and ought to be accepted by the Government, unless they have made up their minds that the people are not fitted for self-government. The amendment provides that within one year an election shall be held. If the members of a local board have not carried out their duties properly the people who are paying the rates will get an opportunity of electing other people to carry out their duty. Unless you are going to set up an autocracy, so that the people of the country shall not have any say in local affairs, this amendment ought to be accepted.

Mr. BARRINGTON

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 19.

Tá

William Cummins.
Michael Duffy.
Thomas Farren.
Thomas Foran.
Patrick W. Kenny.
Edward MacEvoy.
Colonel Maurice Moore.
John T. O'Farrell.

Níl

William Barrington.
Samuel L. Brown.
Richard A. Butler.
Mrs. E. Costello.
Countess of Desart.
J. C. Dowdall.
Sir Thomas Esmonde.
Sir Nugent Everard.
Sir John Griffith.
Benjamin Haughton.
Douglas Hyde.
C. J. Irwin.
Sir John Keane.
Thomas Linehan.
Joseph C. Love.
James Moran.
Bernard O'Rourke.
Mrs. J. Wyse Power.
Earl of Wicklow.

Amendment declared lost.

The Seanad adjourned at 7.5 p.m. until 11.30 on Friday morning.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 5 Feb 1925