I beg to move the following amendment to Section 4:— Sub-section (1), line 11, after the words "this Act," a new Sub-section as follows:—

"At least one month before confirming (either with or without modification) any scheme submitted to him under this Act the Minister shall publish in two newspapers, circulating in the County to which such scheme relates, notice of his intention to confirm such scheme, and whether such confirmation is intended to be with or without modification, and shall at the same time send to the Secretary of the Council in such County and the Clerk of every Rural or Urban District Council in such County a copy of such scheme, with all the modifications (if any) intended to be made therein by the Minister, and such Secretary and Clerks shall respectively at all reasonable times during such month permit such copy to be inspected and copied by any person at the office of the County or Rural or Urban District Council, as the case may be."

Agreed.

I beg to move, in Sub-section 2, line 21, to add a new Sub-section as follows:—

"Every scheme confirmed by the Minister under this Section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is confirmed, and if a resolution is passed by each House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which either House has sat annulling such scheme, such scheme shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such scheme."

Agreed.

I beg to move, to insert immediately before Section 10 a new Section as follows:—

"Any person in a County to which a County Scheme relates who is eligible for relief may, subject to the provisions of such County Scheme and to any regulations made by the Minister in that behalf, be granted outdoor relief, notwithstanding anything in any enactment limiting the granting thereof to certain classes of persons, and this provision shall be deemed to have had effect in any such County from and after the date on which such County Schemes came into operation."

This is consequential on the abolition of workhouses. It really is understood in the whole Bill, and in the whole scheme of amalgamation, but it was not specifically provided for in the Bill.

The question arises whether these old disqualifications from relief which are now removed could not be made under the Bill to apply to the whole of the country even though there may be no new County Scheme. As it stands there will be different conditions applying to those parts of the country where there is no County Scheme in operation. In the City of Dublin, the City of Cork, Louth, and one or two other places, where there is no new scheme brought forward, the old disqualifications will prevail, whereas the remainder of the country, where there had been new County Schemes, will be placed in a different position, and I would suggest that the present Sub-section should be altered to provide for that. The amendment I suggest is:—

"Any person who is eligible for relief may, subject to the provisions of any County Scheme and to any regulations made by the Minister in that behalf, be granted outdoor relief, notwithstanding anything in any County Scheme or in any enactment limiting the granting thereof to certain classes of persons. etc."

The Minister will see the point—that you are establishing an entirely new Poor Law system in one part of the country and not in another.

The difficulty about extending this further than is done in the proposed amendment is simply that where the workhouses continue it is supposed that sufficient provision is made for the relief of all classes in the workhouse. The reasons for removing the restrictions in this temporary Bill, apart from the reasons that might apply if we were dealing with permanent legislation for reform are that the workhouses have gone, that opportunity for relief must be provided, and they only can be provided by way of outdoor relief. Where the workhouses are not abolished there is no particular urgency. There certainly would be a great objection to having alternative systems covering, as you might say, the same class of persons.

What are these provisions? It is not generally known what they are. I think it might be set out.

At present out-door relief can practically be given only to a person who is infirm or to a widow, with two or three children, I think. This would enable all classes of people who are destitute, but who are not now eligible for out-door relief, to be given out-door relief. For instance, it might be that the family of healthy persons were absolutely destitute. At the present time they cannot be relieved outside the workhouse. They can be relieved only under the provisional powers of the Relieving Officer, who can give relief in kind when a sudden urgent emergency arises. Then there are cases of people who might be aged and infirm, but who own a quarter of an acre of land. At present no person owning more than a quarter of a statute acre can be relieved. I think it is certainly desirable that these people should be able to receive relief without being necessarily obliged to divest themselves of the possession of the land, because that would only tend, in many cases, to permanently pauperising them.

I think there was another restriction—that any individual who was a householder was not entitled to out-door relief.

Under the cast-iron restrictions a person destitute and needing relief was obliged to go into the House. When you have abolished work-houses—when you have closed them— that restriction must go, because where there is destitution, where people are going to starve, there must be means of relieving them outside, no matter what their state of health may be, or their age, or anything like that.

I quite agree.

In view of the time that might elapse before schemes are considered for the other counties— Dublin, Cork and elsewhere—would it not be well if the Minister took power so that he might be able to dispense with these obnoxious provisions? Take the case of a widow with one child; would he not think it advisable to have power to make an order that relief might be granted in such a case?

I see that there are cases like that, but what I feel about the matter is that the better way to do it would be to proceed with the completion of schemes in the counties where schemes have not so far been made. So long as the workhouse is kept open to provide for, you might say, any destitute cases that are not capable of receiving outdoor relief under the existing law, it is quite undesirable that an alternative system should be provided—that you should, on the one hand, keep the workhouse open with all the expenses attached to it, and, on the other hand, give the people for whom that is supposed to provide, another form of relief. It seems to me it would constitute a double burden, and certainly would be expensive, and it is a matter which will only be remedied in some kind of permanent legislation. At present I think it would not be desirable to make any change which should really be made by hastening the work of the County Schemes.

There is another small matter on which, perhaps, the Minister could give us some assurance. A new section states. "Any person in a county to which a County Scheme relates, who is eligible for relief, may, subject to the provisions of such County Scheme, and to any regulations made by the Minister in that behalf be granted out-door relief, notwithstanding anything in any enactment limiting the granting thereof to certain classes of persons, and this provision shall be deemed to have had effect in any such country from and after the date on which such County Schemes come into operation." Now, the Tir Connail Scheme has a 12 months' residence condition. Can we have an assurance from the Minister that the regulations made in that behalf will not allow that provision in the Tir Connail Scheme to continue?

I will be quite willing to cut out the words "subject to the provision of such County Scheme," and to leave it "subject to any regulations made by the Minister in that behalf." We could provide the safeguards by regulation.

That would be an improvement.

Is it agreed to delete the words "subject to the provisions of such County Scheme" and leave it "subject to any regulations," etc.?

Agreed.

This proposed new section will now read: "Any person in a county to which a County Scheme relates may, subject to any regulations made by the Minister in that behalf, be granted out-door relief, notwithstanding anything in any enactment limiting the granting thereof to certain classes of persons, and this provision shall be deemed to have had effect in any such county from and after the date on which such County Schemes came into operation."

Does that mean that a person applying for out-door relief in the country will have to wait two or three weeks—and probably be starved—until a reply has been received from the Minister, or will the local bodies have power to grant relief under this Act?

We will make regulations in that connection.

I move:—Section 10— In Sub-section (2), lines 4 and 5, to delete the words "the office of Clerk to such Rural District Council," and to insert in lieu thereof the words:—"or the joint office of Relieving Officer of a Board of Guardians and Sanitary Sub-officer of a Rural District Council, and such joint office was immediately before such abolition pensionable, the office of Clerk to such Rural District Council or the office of Sanitary Sub-officer of such Rural District Council (as the case may be)." This is simply extending the protection which was given to a person who held the joint offices of Clerk to the Board of Guardians and Clerk to the Rural District Council, in the matter of pension, to a person holding the joint offices of Relieving Officer to a Board of Guardians and Sanitary Sub-Officer to a Rural District Council.

The Minister in the discussion in Committee on this question promised to see whether these officers had a legal right of appeal to the Minister.

They have.

I beg to move:—

Section 10—To insert a new Sub-section after line 47 as follows:—

"(6) Where any officer of a Local Authority who holds a pensionable office:

(a) is, or has been removed from his office by or in pursuance of any County Scheme; or

(b) after the passing of this Act, is removed from his office for a cause other than misconduct or incapacity; or

(c) after the passing of this Act resigns his office with the sanction of the Minister—

and was at the time of his appointment to such pensionable office employed by the Local Authority in a temporary capacity, the temporary service of such officer shall, to such extent, if any, as the Minister may direct, be reckoned as service in a pensionable office for the purpose of any enactment relating to the superannuation of officers of a Local Authority."

Under this Sub-section account is to be taken of temporary service in the case of a person who is afterwards appointed to a permanent office when he is being removed from that office for a cause other than misconduct or incapacity. As a matter of fact, in practice, under the Schemes, temporary service has been taken into account.

This is very satisfactory as far as it goes, but it does not deal with a point that was referred to by me in the previous discussion. I would remind the Minister that there was an amendment down proposing to give a half-year for each year of service in computing the pension of any officer of a local authority. While the Minister then said he was prepared to agree to that in pursuance of a County Scheme he was not prepared to agree to it generally. I would like to know how it is proposed to deal with that matter now.

I did not quite catch the Deputy, but we felt it was somewhat difficult to draw any line in this matter, and that at the moment this was about as far as we could safely go. There might be cases of people who were for a very long time on temporary service— people who were really permanent—and we thought it was a matter that had better wait over until it could be dealt with further. In regard to people who had under 10 years' service, and who were entirely temporary we did not feel that we could do anything.

With regard to the compensation given to an officer whose position is abolished I took it from the Minister on the last day on which this was under discussion that he agreed with the proposition to give half a year for each year's service in computing the pension, and that is in accordance with the Circular of September, 1921. I thought he was going to embody that in this Bill, but he does not appear to have done so.

Oh, no; I am sorry I misheard the Deputy. What I said was that so far as the schemes were concerned we had acted upon that and would act on that, but that outside the carrying into effect of the schemes of amalgamation I could not promise that that would be a thing that would apply in all cases. It is a somewhat hypothetical matter, and I preferred not to put in a binding Clause into the Bill. Our practice so far has been to add 50 per cent. in dealing with persons whose offices have been abolished under the schemes, and that will be continued.

I beg to move—To omit the Section, and substitute the following:—

"(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 next held after the passing of this Act while he is or within six 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 as that of or within which is situate the functional area of such Local Authority or in any County adjoining to that County.

"(2) Any member of a Local Authority whose membership is terminated by his resignation or otherwise, at or before the next election or appointment of members to such Local Authority after the passing of this Act shall, for the purposes of this Section, be deemed to have ceased on a date fixed six months prior to the date of such election to be a member of such Local Authority."

Section 13 is being amended so as not to interfere with persons at present members of Local Authorities. They need not, under the terms of the amendment, clear out of these Authorities at the moment. They can continue to hold membership until an election takes place. To a certain extent this does depart from the substance and intention of the resolution of the Second Dáil which was intended to operate from the moment of its passage. However, we feel that it is only just in the circumstances to allow this amount of time. I considered the question of defining classes of employees who might be exempt from this particular provision, but on going into it I was not able to make up my mind to agree to an amendment on these lines.

I cudgelled my brains to understand the meaning of this, as it was circulated, but now, on reading it on the green paper, I find a clue that clarifies the position. While the proposed new section meets the case fairly well of the present members, I would again urge upon the Minister the unfairness of the prohibition, especially in so far as it applies to those persons in another county adjoining the county in question. There may be a case to be made, and I think there is a case to be made, for the prohibition as applying to a member of a Council being employed by members of another Council who are in financial relation to the Council of which he is a member, but I cannot see for the life of me why a single exceptional instance should be made the basis of an Act of Parliament. If one were to quote the Minister for Agriculture—as he is not here I will not quote him. I was going to say we can only produce one instance. The Minister did quote a single instance of a member of a Local Authority being employed by another, and a contervailing position in regard to membership and employment by another Local Authority, and that apparently was made the reason why no person who was a member of a Council in any County should be employed by another Council in another County. The proposed Act is going to make it very much more difficult in Ireland than it is in England or Scotland for persons who are employed by public bodies to give public service of a voluntary kind in administration. I think that is a great pity, and it is a very nasty slur upon the civic patriotism of the Irish people. I would ask the Minister whether he could not agree to deleting these words after "Local Authority" on the last line of Sub-section 1, so that the prohibition would be confined to service within a particular county. There could be no real ground for prohibition in the case of a resident in another county. The chances of collusion are almost infinitesimal. There is more likelihood of collusion when you are dealing with persons employed by private employers, and the evils are likely to be just as great, and you cannot prohibit that. I think it is unwise to cast this general slur upon persons who are employed by Local Authorities and make them unfit, or at least ineligible though well fitted to give service in another county which has no jurisdiction over the employment of that individual. I press that matter upon the Minister to see if he will not agree to limiting or, at least, deleting these last few words in Sub-section 1.

I am afraid I could not agree to this. We have reduced the provision, as it was originally put forward and as originally passed by the Second Dáil, very considerably. One or two of the most glaring instances of this particular and really most objectionable sort of corruption, corruption in which responsible officials of local bodies were concerned, have occurred, where local bodies in different administrative counties were concerned, and where an employee of one Council was a member of the other, and vice versa. I am able to see the argument put forward by Deputy Johnson. I think it was put forward more definitely on the Committee Stage than on this present stage, that there are certain classes of employees of Local Authorities to whom, it might well be argued, this particular section should not apply. The difficulty in that particular case is in deciding where the line of distinction shall be drawn. There can be, I think, no case at all made against this particular provision when we are dealing with what we might call a responsible class of official—I think undoubtedly some provision like this is entirely necessary, and a good provision, and it ought to stand without qualification. If a line could be drawn it might be possible to draw it, so that when dealing with certain other classes of officials who would not have the same opportunities for intrigue, it might be possible, perhaps, to confine the provision of this clause to those who were employed in one county, and not in an adjoining county. For the present it is a watering down of a decree that was passed, and that we have attempted to some extent to enforce—not with great success indeed. At the present stage I have not been able to see very well how or where the line could be drawn. I do not think the provision, as it stands, will really infringe on the liberty of perhaps anybody who would have a case against this, and it will certainly put an end to a matter that has, not in one case, but in quite a number of cases—I know of two or three myself intimately—existed in the past, and which should not be continued.

There is just one point I would like to draw the Minister's attention, to and I would urge him to reconsider his attitude with regard to drawing a distinction between the various classes of persons who would be affected by this, and also, perhaps, the particular authorities. For instance, membership of a local council would, I take it, come under the provisions of this clause.

Yes.

As far as I know the relations between the Urban Councils, say, and the County Councils are not as close as those of a District Council and the County Council. He might give that point consideration—that officials should not be debarred from membership of an Urban Council. I know cases connected with a mental hospital where employees of that hospital are members of the Urban Council. I think it would be stretching the thing very far to see how they could, from their membership of the Urban Council, be guilty in the way of abuses or corruption, so that I think it is a matter that might get consideration. I think it would really be best if the particular classes of employees were defined by the Minister.

It occurs to me that the insertion in the last line, Sub-section (1), after the word "or," of the words "of such Local Authority or save with previous reference to and sanction of the Minister in any county adjoining," might meet the position. There are, of course, some officials of a minor capacity in the service of Local Authorities who could not be supposed to have opportunity for the particular class of corruption suggested by the Minister, and it might be difficult here and now to attempt a classification. If, however, a saving clause were inserted, or that the matter was left open so that each case could be pretty well decided on its merits when referred up, it might meet the point.

I would be very glad to support that suggestion. It meets to a considerable degree the point made on the last occasion.

I am willing. I accept that suggestion.

As a mere matter of wording, the last eight words in Sub-section 2 ought to come at the end of the preceding line—"be deemed to have ceased to be a member of such Local Authority on a date six months prior to the date of such election."

The amendment proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs is to insert in the last line of Sub-section 1, after the word "or," the words, "save with previous reference to and sanction of the Minister," so that the line would read, "of such Local Authority, or save with previous reference to and sanction of the Minister in any county adjoining to that county."

Does that mean that that only applies to counties outside the functional area?

Yes.

And to those who are getting no employment within the county?

Yes.

I thought the amendment the Minister for Home Affairs was suggesting had relation to the class of persons within the county, and was in response to Deputy O'Connell.

If you start out with those class restrictions you had better abandon this section altogether, and not be acting the hypocrite.

I certainly would not agree to any employment within the county. Even although the Urban Councils are not closely related, we have found that those various bodies have a sort of inter-relation and inter-action, and I would not be willing to agree.

To that extent my cordial acquiescence is modified.

Deputy Fitzgibbon raised the point in relation to Sub-section 2.

I suggest that the end of the Sub-section should read "ceased to be a member of such local authority on a date six months prior to the date of such election." I think it reads better.

I move:—"To insert after the words "Local Authority" the words "in any office or employment to which this section applies," and at the end to add after the word "respectively" a new sub-section as follows:—

"This Section shall apply to such offices and employments as the Minister shall from time to time by order prescribe."

The amendment to Section 14 is to make it clear that the Minister has power to prescribe offices which will require his sanction in the case of making appointments. It was not the intention at any time to require sanction for employment in minor offices or temporary employment. I was advised that there was power to dispense with the requirement of sanction but in order that the thing might be quite clear and indisputable, this has been introduced.

I move:—To add after the word "effect" at end of paragraph (V)), a new sub-section as follows:—

"Every Order made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by each House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which either House has sat annulling such Order, such Order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such Order."

Section 19 provides that the Orders making various adaptations of Acts and Regulations shall be laid on the Table of the House.

I move:—To delete Clause (i) (b).

This is to omit a sub-section which crept in through inadvertance.

In the case of County Kerry, where local government matters are very chaotic, it is somewhat necessary that the power given under Section 11 of this Bill should be exercised without delay. The Dáil will not meet next week; but the Seanad will, I understand, meet on Wednesday. If there were no objections, I would ask leave to move the suspension of Standing Orders so that we may take the final stage of this Bill, with a view to having it placed before the Seanad next week.

We will raise no objection.

I beg to move:—"That the Local Government (Temporary) Provisions Bill, 1923, be now passed."

I beg to second the motion.