When the Committee reported progress I was referring to amendment No. 21, in which the Minister can lay down as the essential qualifications for a public servant, that he should have red hair and, therefore, dismiss him because he cannot dye it in time to satisfy the Minister's new regulation. I was directing attention to the fact that in the past, where a post in the public service has had to be filled by competition and examination, and the person responsible for filling the post desired to see a particular individual secured, it has been known that the particular individual's special qualifications have been examined and then there have been attached as conditions of appointment to the particular post in question just the qualifications that that particular individual has and that nobody else in the State happened to have.

You will find a gentleman being appointed as medical officer for Buttevant, and a proviso being attached to the appointment that the person to fill this office must have a degree in tropical medicine, because it so happens that one particular candidate for the post has a degree in tropical medicine, and that it is highly unlikely that anybody else going up for that post would have a similar degree. Those essential qualifications having been stipulated, all the form and paraphernalia of the Appointments Commission is set in force, and as the candidates present themselves they are eliminated one by one, until the unique candidate with the obscure degree emerges and is appointed, because he is the only man with this peculiar degree which has been declared by the requirements to be an essential qualification for the medical officer for Buttevant. If we are to extend that procedure further by saying that, when an officer is in possession of a post someone can go down and examine that man's qualifications from A to Z, and make a regulation that the only person fitted to retain the post is one who holds qualifications which the present occupant has not got, and then proceed to call on him under this Bill to resign, in order to make way for somebody else who may be in a position to show this qualification, that is introducing an element into the public services of this country—whether in local administration or central administration—which is extremely undesirable.

I do not suggest for a moment that it is the intention of the present Minister for Local Government and Public Health to bring in regulations of this character for the purpose I have outlined here, but I am saying that if, as the Minister himself says, the only reason the proviso is put in is to make provision for improvement in the event of some elaborate reorganisation being desirable in the future, cannot words to that effect be put in? There is a provision in the Ministers and Secretaries Act or some such measure where, if it is desired to superannuate a civil servant who is not coming under one of the usual schemes of superannuation, the Minister can do it provided he can prove that the superannuation of that officer contributes to the more efficient working of the department from which he is being superannuated, but there is placed on the Minister the obligation to prove that a specific purpose is served before the superannuation will be permitted by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the State. Surely there should be some provision in this Bill that, before the Minister calls upon an existing public servant to resign, he should have to satisfy some independent officer of State that this is being done in order to secure the more efficient or more economic administration of the department to which the official belongs.

I do not think anybody in this House will complain if the Minister takes power under a code of this kind to remove officers whose occupations have become archaic, and give them full compensation by way of pension, but the power to do that need not go so far as to have anybody removed simply by making a regulation that certain qualifications are essential to the occupant of an office which he knows that an existing officer has not got. It is quite true that no Bill introduced here can effectively legislate for the exceptional case, but there are certain underlying principles of legislation which should never be departed from, except in a time of emergency or when existing canons must be put aside to protect the State. We had an incident recently in connection with the Finance Bill, when the Minister for Finance on reflection abandoned the attempt to introduce proposals for retrospective taxation. From the feeling that went through the House it was felt that however future tax burdens should be met it was an unsound thing to make them retrospective. That should be the broad general principle of a Financial Resolution, and it should be the broad general principle in this kind of transaction, that where a man is doing a job according to the terms of the original agreement, it should not be in the power of anyone to require from him qualifications over and above those attaching to the office when he was appointed. It is common knowledge that a man of middle age, who is doing his day to day work, is in no way fit to acquire academic or other qualifications that might be reasonably looked for if a new tenancy in the office was contemplated. I suggest to the Minister that this amendment might be accepted, or the section withdrawn and recast so as to give power analogous to that of any Minister in regard to civil servants in the way of superannuation when a more efficient organisation is set up by the Government.

I might shorten this discussion by intervening to point out, as I did on the Second Reading, that this was a machinery Bill, to make permanent a number of temporary provisions, and to legislate for certain statutory orders that have been made already. In getting these temporary provisions or statutory rules into permanent shape, we found that certain interpretations were placed upon some of them, and that there were cases not provided for. An Act was passed here that a female officer getting married should be entitled to a gratuity. I believe the inference intended to be drawn, though it was not specifically provided, was that she should resign on marriage. This section, as well as having in mind changes arising perhaps from reorganisation, was intended to provide for the particular cases of women who got married, as well as for general reorganisation. I agree with the Deputy that it is very objectionable to bring in qualifications subsequent to an appointment, and while I cannot accept the amendment, if the Deputy withdraws it now, I will try to meet it on the Report Stage.

That is fair.

Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25 and 27 are involved.

They have a bearing on it.

To some extent they will have. If they are let go now, before the Report Stage I will have them examined to see if there is a clash. The Bill having passed Committee Stage, if there is a clash, we can then make the necessary alterations.

That is satisfactory.

Is the Minister moving the amendments now?

Yes. I move amendment No. 22:—

In sub-section (1), page 11, to add at the end of the sub-section the words "and, if such holder refuses to resign from such office or fails to resign from such office within the said period, may by order remove such holder from such office.

The Minister will find out if there is a clash before report?

Yes.

The matter can be corrected on the Report Stage.

Certainly.

I move amendment No. 26:—

To delete paragraph (a) and to substitute a new paragraph as follows:—

(a) is satisfied after due inquiry that the holder of an office is unfit for or incompetent to discharge the duties of such office, or

My fears about this section are that we are not going to have any statement from the Minister as to the reasons why he is dissatisfied with an officer. If an official can be peremptorily discharged without any reason being given, it is a bad position and, from my reading of the section, it appears that that will be the position, if it passes in its present form. If the Minister deems a person unfit to hold a position there is some valid reason and I maintain that somebody is entitled to know it. We had a certain experience where, without any reason being given, a very high official was discharged, and that caused very grave dissatisfaction and a feeling of insecurity. I do not want that to happen again. The Minister should be able to say when he deems a certain person unfit to hold office.

We had this matter on the Second Reading. It is not necessary to have "due inquiry" in every case. As Deputies are aware, what happens is that when it comes to the knowledge of the Department that something is wrong in the ordinary way there is due inquiry made by an inspector. I assume that what the Deputy has in mind is the holding of a local or public inquiry.

Not necessarily.

There is always an inquiry where an official is suspended. Take a case where a person is charged with embezzlement and convicted by a court. There is no point in having another investigation. In every other case when something comes to notice, if it is a serious matter, the officer is suspended, and the practice is that he is given an opportunity to send in an explanation or answer the charge. Take a case where moneys have been embezzled, as often happens, and a person is convicted by a court, it would be only waste of time to have an inquiry then.

What is the present position?

When the auditor reports that there is something wrong, if the matter is serious enough, the officer is suspended. He then gets an extract from the auditor's report or the substance of the charge made by the auditor, and is asked for an explanation.

Do the councils concerned get notification simultaneously?

They are notified.

Who suspends the official?

The Minister.

If the officer fails to make a satisfactory explanation, the Minister can proceed to remove him by sealed order?

Yes.

Is there anything unduly cumbrous about that procedure? What are we going to save by this new power? The only thing you are going to save is the procedure of notifying the officer, and the reason why the Minister is dissatisfied with him—of giving him a few days to make whatever case he can. If he fails to make that case, then he is removed. I agree with the Minister that in practice, in 99 cases out of 100, powers of this kind would not be abused. May I be excused for intruding on the House an anecdote to illustrate my point? My grandfather told me that when he went up to the court of appeal he found that the procedure there was extremely tedious and slow. He complained to his colleagues on the bench that they took a long time to get through their business. The Chief Justice, who was presiding, said to him: "What you have got to remember, judge, is that in this court you have not only got to do justice, but you have got to persuade the appellant that he has got justice."

Now if you are going to try a man— and mind you this means trying a man on the grounds of incompetence to discharge his duties, or of unfitness for his position, and he is in a sense on trial—you have not only got to do substantial justice, but you have got to satisfy everybody that substantial justice has been done. Surely, it is the very essence of doing substantial justice that the person to be condemned should be heard, that he will, at least, be told where he has fallen short, and will be afforded the opportunity of making representations to the Minister, or of giving an explanation, as to why he fell short. If the Minister, having perused that, makes up his mind that the explanation is insufficient, and consequently decides to dismiss the official, then, at least, everybody knows that the man has had the opportunity of making his case.

All of us in this House are familiar with the person who approaches one and complains that some grave injustice has been done to him, the person who says that the proof of that is that he has never been allowed to state his case. The most experienced one amongst us will have felt, I think, that where a person has been able to convince us that he has never been allowed to state his case, it was rather unfortunate that, before a final decision was taken, the man was not at least heard. The Minister has all the powers he requires at the present time to remove an unfit public servant. The only thing he is doing by this section is to short-circuit the procedure. Will the members of this House tell me that they want this precedure short-circuited? I do not. I think that, if you are going to remove a man from his present position of emolument on the ground that he is unfit and incompetent, we can well afford a few extra days to demonstrate to that man, to his neighbours and to everybody else that he has had a fair trial. I can sympathise with busy civil servants who are anxious to expedite public business and who always want the shortest way to their objective. I can sympathise with the layman going into a court of criminal law, feeling that there is a lot of abracadabra going on there that could well be dispensed with, but, nevertheless, those learned in the criminal law, and experienced in jurisprudence, will point out that the slow, solemn and involved procedure of the court of law which is determining a man's guilt or innocence, is of very great value in that it provides to him the utmost possible opportunity of stating his own case. Whatever penalty be inflicted upon him, his neighbours and the public will have an easy conscience that the man got no more than his deserts. Now, here is a very much shorter process which is being made even shorter still. What Deputy in the House would deny to a public servant, who is about to be dispensed with on the grounds of incompetence or unfitness, the right to make his own case? If all of us on all sides want him to have that right, why will not the Minister leave it to him? Does the Minister want to deprive that public servant of the right to state his own case? If not, what is the purpose of the section?

I do not think the section goes as far as the Deputy seems to think it does. Under the Local Officers and Employees Act of 1926, there had to be an inquiry immediately after suspension. This section does not repeal that. If you did not have an inquiry, and did not inform a person of the reasons why he was being removed, I think that the courts, if appealed to, would hold that such a course was against natural justice. Under this section the person will be informed of the reasons why he is being suspended. When a man is suspended —I am not thinking now of cases of embezzlement or charges of that kind— he is asked for an explanation. It is only when the department is satisfied that the explanation is not sufficient; in other words, that it is not an explanation at all, that he is removed from office.

Apart from officials charged with embezzlement, or with some other serious misdemeanour the procedure in the case of the ordinary official of a local authority who is suspended is this: that under the 1926 Act a sworn inquiry is held. It is only as a result of that inquiry that the official can be removed from office. Does this section propose to alter that? The Minister put the case that if another procedure was followed, the courts might hold that the action taken was against natural justice. I think that even if there was an omission in the 1926 Act the House might very well give way to the suggested amendment of Deputy Brennan. The implication in it is, that before an official is removed, he will have the opportunity of either putting his case before a court or before a sworn inquiry. I think the amendment is a reasonable one. After all, a man's means of livelihood depends upon the position he holds, and he ought not to be removed until a full inquiry has been held into the whole matter.

The Minister's defence of this section is based on the 1926 Act, and he relates that to the case of an official who is suspended. The suspension referred to there requires that a certain procedure be followed. Surely this section, as it stands, does not deal with a suspension at all. It deals with an immediate dismissal without any inquiry.

With regard to the point that has been raised about natural justice, there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent us from legislating against natural justice. A right which a citizen would have, by implication, to natural justice we can withdraw from him by a specific enactment. If we say specifically "may, by order, remove the holder of the office from such office if the Minister deems the holder of the office to be unfit for or incompetent to discharge the duties of such office," no court in Christendom would hold that, that statute notwithstanding, the Minister might not remove the officer if he deemed him to be incompetent. I fancy that, if I went into court, having been removed by the Minister under that section, all that counsel representing the Minister would have to do would be to produce a sealed and certified copy of the order deeming me to be incompetent and that would end the proceedings.

The practice has been that, where a man is found unfit for his position, he is suspended. That is usually done on the report of an auditor or some document of that kind. When he is suspended, the 1926 Act operates and there must be due inquiry. This section does not take away his rights under the 1926 Act.

Provided there has been an initial suspension, he comes under the 1926 Act. But suppose there is no initial suspension and a decision is taken by the Minister that the person concerned is incompetent or unfit and he is removed from office under Section 25 of this Bill, the 1926 Act never begins to function at all. Deputy Brennan's proposal is to bring this section into line with the 1926 proviso so that, even if there is not an initial suspension, the inquiry-machinery of the 1926 Act must operate before the Minister makes up his mind as to the occupant's competence or fitness for the office. That seems reasonable enough. Will the Minister consider it?

I shall consider it between now and Report Stage, but I feel that it is not necessary.

Surely, the Minister sees the point.

I see the point, but it never arose in that way.

Suppose I were Minister to-morrow and the devil unduly tempted me, so that I desired to do wrong-inconceivable as the thought may be to the present holder of the office-this section empowers me to do wrong. I want to put a statutory duty upon myself, in the event of my ever being Minister for Local Government and Public Health, to do what is right so that, if the devil should ever tempt me, the Local Government Act, 1940, can be set in motion against me for the protection of the civil servant whom I am attempting to rob.

I could do that under the amendment, too.

Between now and Report Stage, you can improve the wording of the amendment. All I want is that, whether the Minister initiates proceedings by suspension or determines he will proceed to remove the officer forthwith, either procedure will be preceded by a sworn inquiry at which the officer may make whatever case he wants to make and, on the findings thereof, the Minister can make up his mind and act accordingly.

I do not think that Deputy Brennan means to have a sworn inquiry.

Not necessarily.

Due inquiry.

My contention is that the Minister is placed in a new and strengthened position by this Bill as contrasted with the 1926 Act. All that is necessary is that the Minister should "deem" the officer concerned unfit. He need not give any reason for his opinion and there need be no inquiry.

I appreciate that the Minister will look into the matter between now and next stage, but there is one other thought I should like to put before him. His objection to Deputy Brennan's amendment is that, in a case of embezzlement, or similar offence, tried by the courts, a further inquiry should not be necessary. He has given his own objection away because a person guilty of embezzlement would surely be suspended and, under the 1926 Act, he has to hold an inquiry. It seems to me that the objection to Deputy Brennan's amendment is, therefore, gone.

Under the 1926 Act, the suspension must take place before the inquiry is held. Suppose the local authority do not act as they should and fail to suspend the particular official, the Minister can hold no inquiry and cannot dismiss the official concerned.

The power to suspend is with the Minister.

So far as I know, the local authority must suspend.

It can be done either by a local authority or the Minister.

The Minister very seldom steps in until the local authority has acted. You can imagine a case where the local authority might be trying to shield the official for a very long time.

The Minister has all the necessary powers.

It would not be extraordinary for such a case to happen. I think the difficulty is that local authorities are never anxious to suspend an official, or have him dismissed because they feel that, once an official, he is an official for life and cannot be dismissed or lowered in his grade.

If the Deputy says much more, cats will come out of the bag that will astonish us all.

The whole purpose of the amendment is to secure that nobody be removed from office without reasonable inquiry.

If an inspector was sent down to a meeting of the board, it would constitute an inquiry.

I do not think that there is much in the proposal.

If there is nothing in it, there is no harm in coming half-way to meet us.

This amendment is consequential on the amendment which we have just discussed.

It is wider than the last amendment we discussed. The official himself might not wish to have the reasons stated.

He might not wish to have them stated in detail. I am not keen on this proposal if you give due inquiry in any shape or form, so that the officer can make his case.

The Minister should jump at this amendment because if he persuades us to surrender No. 26 in exchange for No. 28 he will be able to say that he found the holder incompetent to discharge his office. I would not swap No. 28 for No. 26 at all.

What is the purpose of this section in relation to Section 25? Why is it necessary for the local authority to have power apart from the Minister? Is it intended that the Minister shall initiate matters through the local authority? If not, I suggest that the addition of the words "if so requested" after "may", in the first line, would clarify the matter. That would definitely mean that the local authority would approach the Minister instead of the Minister urging the local authority to take the necessary step.

The local authority should have those powers as well as the Minister. When the County Management Act is put into operation there will be certain officers under the county manager and the local authority will have absolute power to deal with them.

The point made by Deputy Benson surely is that Section 26 contemplates that the local authority may exercise power analogous to that exercised by the Minister under Section 25, but is it contemplated in Section 26 that the initiative in the use of these powers will come from the local authority or from the Minister?

From the local authority.

If it is intended that the initiative should come from the local authority why not put in "the appropriate Minister, if requested, may empower the relevant local authority to remove from office"? Is not that the point made by Deputy Benson?

Yes.

What is the purpose of this section?

As I pointed out, certain officers will be under the local authority altogether when the County Management Act comes into operation. At least, that is what is contemplated. In cases of that sort the local authority will deal with the officials. The Minister must have the power to deal with certain officials, and there may be other officials over whom the local authority will have absolute control.

The Minister will have the same power over all officials?

He will, yes.

I suggest that in sub-section (2)—"Where a local authority makes a provisional appointment the following provision shall have effect ..." the word should be "provisions."

"The following provisions shall have effect."

I move amendment No. 30:—

To delete all words after the word "thereof" in line 27 to the end of the section.

I put down this amendment simply to ask the Minister why we have been introducing matters like this into some Bills much more frequently lately than heretofore. The Minister may tell me, of course, that it is in order to prevent administrative difficulties but, to my mind, we have carried this thing a good deal too far. We introduce sections into Bills in which we say: "If there is some other authority in the State which has to be complied with, this overrides it," although it does not specifically state that. That has led to a very large extent to chaos in endeavouring to understand and follow Acts of the House. I think the less we have of that the better. If the Minister can meet it in any other way I think he ought to try, and should clarify the thing.

Under Section 19, the Minister may make regulations for classes of offices. He can make regulations fixing the remuneration for a body such as county surveyors or assistant surveyors, but you may have a case, for instance, of a county medical officer of health or some such office, where you may have to deal with the case as an individual case, not as a class. County medical officer of health is, perhaps, a bad example to take, but there may be some major office in a county which you would have to deal with individually and fix the salary individually. This section is intended to provide that when you have to deal with a case like that, it overrides the regulation that deals with the class, that is, the regulation made under Section 19. That is the object of the section—to enable you to deal with an individual case.

In making these regulations there ought to be some provision that you will not have to go outside them.

That may be possible in the regulations. I do not know.

It is really very bad practice to have such provisions in Acts of Parliament.

I move amendment No. 31:—

In sub-section (1), page 14, to delete all from the word "shall" in line 18 to the word "such" in line 21 and substitute "shall by order or by two or more orders—

(a) fix the total number of the members of every council of a county, and

(b) divide every county into county electoral areas, and

(c) fix in respect of every"

This amendment is in substitution for Section 34.

It seems to be a redraft of Section 34.

Are we going to discuss this amendment and my following amendment together, because one will have an over-riding effect on the other?

If amendment No. 31 is carried, Section 34 disappears. Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 might be discussed together.

If amendment No. 31 is carried, amendment No. 32 goes.

Therefore the two amendments might be discussed together since they both relate to the number of members to be elected.

My reason for putting down amendment No. 32 is that the Minister is taking the right in his amendment to fix the total number of the members of every council of a county; to divide every county into county electoral areas, and fix in every respect other matters. I want him to fix them in a particular way as regards area and population. As a matter of fact, I do not see any reason whatever at the present time for a reduction in the members of the county council. It has been freely canvassed for some time, even before this Bill came into print at all, that there was going to be a very drastic reduction made in the members of the county councils and, coincident with that, there was also the rumour that the county councils were going to lose all the powers they had, and that matters relating to county administration were going to be discharged by a manager. If there is any force in the appointment of a manager in order to expedite county administration, there is no force left in the proposal to reduce the number of the members of the county council, because by their numbers they were in some way blocking administration. It may be argued that because there were too many members in the county council it was unwieldy, and that it took a long time to discharge duties, and to discuss the matters that had to be discussed, and that, possibly, there was a lot of idle discussion. That may be true, but that surely has all disappeared by the appointment of a manager, because the number of matters that would come up for consideration by a county council would be very few and far between.

We have three Bills at the present time—the Public Assistance Bill, the Managerial Bill and this Local Government Bill, all supposed to be a part of each other. They are all dove-tailed into each other. It is very difficult for us to consider the implications of every Bill as a kind of joint administrative machine but if my recollection of the Public Assistance Bill is correct, we have been making provision in it for the appointment of sub-committees of various sorts and kinds all over the county for the purpose of carrying on administration as consultative bodies. If we are going to do that, is it not the best possible foundation we can have to have a pretty large elected body that will do the work? You will then have people who were elected by the voters in the county on these sub-committees doing the work instead of having nominated persons who possibly might have not very much knowledge or might not be able to boast that they had been elected by popular franchise at any time. I should like that, at least in the new election, there should be no reduction of members of county councils. Consequently, I am asking in this amendment that the basis for fixing the number of members will be the same basis as was followed in the 1925 Act. I am asking for no more than that. I do not think it reasonable to insist on a reduction of members for county councils. I think the more elected representatives you have the better off you will be. At the moment, many of us are throwing our minds back even to parish councils. We have on one side a scheme of centralisation and on another side a scheme of decentralisation. We should be consistent in some way. If the numbers of members of the county council are pretty high at the moment, we can make very good use of them and it is much better to appoint elected representatives to these various committees than to have them constituted of people nominated in some unsatisfactory way. I am appealing to the Minister to retain the present basis of fixing the membership of county councils.

On the Second Reading of the Bill, I expressed more or less the same point of view as that to which Deputy Brennan has now given expression, namely, that it would be a pity to reduce to too low a figure the number of elected members of councils. I think the experience has been that after a council has been elected for a few years the average attendance at meetings is from one-half to two-thirds of the full membership. There is a very large number of committees to be elected from among the members of the county council-mental hospitals committees, vocational committees, agricultural committees, and so on, and some councils find great difficulty in finding members to represent them on these committees owing to the fall in attendance, say, six months or 12 months after elections. If you reduce the number of members, as proposed in this Bill, I am afraid you will do a big injustice to many people. It must be remembered that an electoral area for a county council covers a considerable area, and you may find very large districts in a county without any elected representative at all. If you reduce the membership further, you will find that while comparatively small areas, owing to density of population, may succeed in being adequately represented, very often a large area which is sparsely populated may have no representative at all. I know that a difficulty exists at present in counties, such as Cork, where there are very large councils but, taking the average county council, consisting of 27 to 30 members, I do not believe that they are unwieldy or incapable of transacting business properly. The average attendances at meetings of such councils after a few months generally fall to about 17 to 21 members. Taking the home assistance committee, the public health committee and all the other sub-committees that must be set up under various Acts, if you are confined to a small number of members, you will have to co-opt outsiders to these committees, many of whom have actually no responsibility as public representatives. Sometimes, even the most desirable people, the very best administrators, who are co-opted in this way, will not take on the same responsibility as elected members. That, I think, is the general experience and that is why I think the Minister should not too hastily enshrine in legislation this power to fix the number of members. It would be more desirable if the number could be fixed by order, as occasion arose.

The Minister takes power in amendment No. 31 to divide every county into county electoral areas. As far as I can read the amendment with the rest of the section, he fixes the number of members of a council on a certain basis, he fixes the areas, and he fixes the number of members to be elected by each area. It would be possible in an extreme case, as far as I can read the section, for the Minister to divide the county into two areas, and to ordain that one member of a council should be elected from one of these areas and the rest of the members from the other area. That is taking an extreme case. I am not suggesting that any responsible Minister would do that, but reading the section with the amendment, I would say that the Minister has perfect power to gerrymander the constituency of a local authority without any guide whatsoever, by way of population or area, as to what should constitute the basis of a county electoral area.

To get some idea of the changes that have come about in representation on county councils and local authorities, one has to go back to the position pre-1925. Pre-1925, the number of members was much smaller than at the moment. In 1925, the functions of the rural councils were handed over to the board of health and the board of health, as you know, was elected from the county council. There were two members of each rural council, that is the chairman and another member, added on. Since then the Public Assistance Act and the County Management Act have been passed. Under the Public Assistance Act power is given to set up local committees to deal with particular matters.

That was in the 1925 Act, too.

They did not seem to avail of it very much then. Under the County Management Act, you have the county manager responsible for all executive functions so that councils will not have anything like the same amount of work they had to do when they had to deal with board of health duties and many other matters which will now be in the hands of the county manager. There is no intention whatever to make drastic reductions. In these orders the Minister will have to be guided by population and also by the convenience of an area. I do not think, except in very few cases, that it will be necessary to interfere with the existing electoral areas. Cork had 68 members, and subsequent to 1925, I think it was at their own request, it was reduced to 43.

That is right.

As a matter of fact under this Bill as it is drafted they would be entitled to more than 43, but they do not want more. I could give examples of other councils, but there is only a provisional calculation as to how it works out. Taking Deputy Brennan's area—this, again, is only a provisional calculation as to how it might work out—pre-1925 Roscommon had 21 representatives on the county council ; subsequent to 1925 they had 31 members, and the calculation at the present time is that they should have 26. It may not be necessary to make any alteration in the electoral areas, or, again, it may in one or two of them. Pre-1925, Wexford had 20 representatives; after 1925 it had 26 and the present calculation would show that they would be entitled to 21. There is not intended to be any drastic interference with the county councils. The Bill prevents that in any event. Some people believe that small councils do more work than large cumbersome councils, but there is no attempt being made under the provisions of this Bill to make any drastic change. We are making only very small reductions in the number of members of the county councils. I also believe that you will have more local committees set up to deal with local matters, and the work will be carried out under the direction and with the assistance of the county manager.

The Minister, I am sure, will admit that our fears are not groundless with regard to the numbers, because the only guide we have is that set out in Section 35 in relation to borough councils. That section says: "if such number would, but for this section, be an even number greater than 19, one half of the said even number." It is set down in black and white, hard and fast, that those local authorities are to be reduced by practically 50 per cent.. Surely our fears as to a reduction in the numbers are very well grounded, judging by that.

Does not sub-section (2) of Section 33 give you the basis for the county councils?

Yes. That is quite true; I am sorry. It says:—

"where...the total number of members of such council is a number less than 30, a number not less than 20,"

—so a council that might have 29 would be put off with 20. To my mind, the Minister has made quite a good case for retaining the number of members of county councils, in the same way as Deputy Allen and myself have tried to make it, inasmuch as under the Public Assistance Act it is necessary to make provision for the election of committees for the discharge of certain duties. Has the Minister any objection to the members of those necessary committees being elected persons rather than selected persons?

Of course they can be too.

I know they can, but if we have only 21 to draw from instead of 31 then we will have less people to go around, and people with a much more restricted knowledge of the county than if we had 31 to pick from. That is the strongest argument I can use for the continuance of the present number of members elected to the various county councils. I do not think the councils are unwieldy. As committees are necessary in a county for the purpose of administering public assistance and other matters, we ought to have a wide number of persons with local knowledge, particularly of public assistance, and they ought to be, in so far as we can help it, people who are elected and not selected. Consequently, I appeal to the Minister that, as far as possible, the members should be elected to the new county councils on something like the same basis that we have at the present time. If he takes whatever the basis was under the 1926 Act—I presume it was the population of the area—and operates it in the same way, I have no objection whatever. It may come down a peg or go up a peg, but I think it would be in the interests of public administration that we should have a large number of elected persons, with the responsibilities of being elected, rather than selected persons.

Of course those vocational committees and agricultural committees, as the Deputy knows, are selected by the elected representatives.

They must consist of a number of elected members.

Those committees have worked all right. You may get committees by selecting people from the area who have some specialised knowledge or some special interest in the particular duties delegated to them. I do not think there is any force in that argument.

You may do that, but every time I should prefer to have a person who was elected by the people, and has to go back again to be elected by them, rather than somebody who would have no responsibility. In other words, I should like to have acting on every committee some person or a number of persons who were members of the rate-making authority. I admit that we have very desirable persons on vocational educational committees and the county committees of agriculture. The county committee of agriculture in our area is composed entirely of members of the county council, but the vocational committee is not. Again, if you reduce the number of members on the county council you are reducing the number of persons available for those particular committees. That is my point. You ought to keep them there, because you will want them.

I should like to support Deputy Brennan's amendment. I suggest that the number should not be reduced, for the reasons stated by Deputy Allen. There is also another point which I wish to raise. It is somewhat akin to the matter referred to by Deputy Esmonde, although I am not very much perturbed about gerrymandering, but I do suggest that the reasons in regard to the number of members under the present allocation would apply also to the divisions, with perhaps much more force. The various county councils are divided into a number of electoral divisions. A number of them are very cumbersome. The Minister said there would not be much alteration, but I sincerely hope there will be changes in the electoral areas. Some of them in my county are particularly cumbersome. I do not know why they were originally so framed, but they need to be changed. I should not like the change to take the form of an enlargement of the areas, as would be possible under the Minister's amendment. I would rather see them grouped into smaller areas and certainly not less in number than at present. The Minister's amendment would make it possible to alter the number in a county like mine, in which there are five divisions, to three, and if there were to be any change, I would prefer to see the number increased to seven. I should like to see all the amendments framed somewhat on the lines of Deputy Brennan's, that is. that, both in respect of number and area, they shall not be less than was set out in the previous Act.

There is one point which the Minister ought not to overlook in this connection. It is that the county manager, in being given very wide executive powers, is being handicapped in that he has not got that local knowledge which the local representative has. He will be handicapped also in that he will not have the confidence of the people which the local representative will have. If you are curtailing the powers of the local authority and putting their executive powers in the hands of the manager, there is all the more reason why there should be full representation, so that if the people in a particular locality have a grievance, they can go to their local representative and put their problem in his hands. I think we ought not to overlook that aspect, particularly at present when the tendency in some countries is to destroy democracy and local representation altogether. There is a bond of sympathy between the local representatives and the people which ought to be preserved. If the local representative is doing his duty conscientiously and well, and looking after the interests of his people, they will have confidence in him, and there will be a bond of sympathy between them. That cannot obtain between a paid official and the people, and in order to preserve the confidence of the people in the local authority to do the best they can in the interests of their people, you want full representation. I should not be inclined to reduce the number of representatives at all, and I think the Minister ought to be very slow to do so.

There is, of course, something to be said on both sides, but there is nothing to prevent these elected members sitting on these committees.

I know, but there are fewer of them to go round.

Take the case of a county council. You put ten members on the board of health and you then proceed to fill up the other committees, such as the mental hospital, vocational education and agricultural committees. If you are reducing your county council by only three or four—and in most cases that seems to me to be the way it will work out——

It will be nearer to nine or ten.

It will in some places, I believe, mean eight or nine. That is not a very big reduction, and it will leave sufficient members on the county council to enable them to have a controlling voice if they want it on these committees which may have duties delegated to them. There is a lot to be said on both sides because, very often, there are people with a particular interest in the work of certain committees—a specialised interest, perhaps—who will not go up for election in the ordinary way but whose assistance could be of very great value.

They are a damn nuisance most of the time.

I am speaking only for the county I know myself, but that might be what has caused Deputy Allen to be so suspicious about it.

Would the Minister consider the case of a rural district attached to an urban area? When you reduce the representation, it may so happen that the rural district may lose what representation it has, and would then be represented solely by the urban area. The more you tend to reduce the numbers, the surer you may be that that is what will happen —the urban area, with the predominating voting power, will leave the rural district unrepresented.

That will be the tendency.

Undoubtedly. I know areas in which that will happen, if there is a reduction.

Another point which I should like to put to the Minister is that this is a permanent measure, we hope, and I should like to see a certain fluidity by which the Minister would have the right, possibly at some future date, to alter the numbers according as population or some other cause warrant it. Under this, we are fixed down to a certain formula and, if a council consisted of a certain number before this Act came into operation, the formula came into force and a certain number had to be fixed. No other factors whatever could be taken into consideration. If at present the number of councillors in a particular county is too high in proportion to its area or population, the new percentage under this formula will also be to high. I should prefer to see the Minister accepting my amendment with the elimination of the words "shall not be less in such regard than the numbers fixed under the Local Government Act, 1925". If the Minister would simply have a section whereby we would have a guarantee that the numbers fixed by the Minister would be fixed in relation to area and population, I think we could rely on the Minister's fixing the right numbers afterwards, but I certainly object to a fixed number under a formula like this, without any regard whatever for the conditions that went before or that may follow.

There is, in amendment No. 34 that fluidity which the Deputy has in mind. The amendment says:—

The Minister may by order amend or modify any division made by an order under this section (including an order under this sub-section) of any county into county electoral areas or alter the number of members of the council of any county to be elected by virtue of an order under this section (including an order under this sub-section) from any county electoral area in such county, and every such amendment, modification, or alteration shall have effect for the purposes of the elections held next after the making of such amendment, modification or alteration and thereafter.

I am glad to see that, but I think the Minister ought to realise that there is some force in the argument we are putting forward in this respect.

It will be got perhaps by experience.

I think it essential that you should retain sufficient to give you a majority on the various committees. Many of these committees, like mental hospital committees and technical committees, can commit local authorities to huge expenditure. It may be said that, so far as the technical committees are concerned, they have to apply to the county council for sanction, but we all know how difficult it is to turn down the recommendations put forward by any of these committees. The people trusted by the ratepayers to spend their money properly, and to exercise proper control and a sense of responsibility, are the elected representatives, and on those committees, which have power to commit local bodies to expenditure, we should always provide for a majority of elected representatives.

As to the various extensions of various committees that you suggest having, and which Deputy Allen pointed out we had power to set up under the Act of 1925, you may find them a very dangerous matter to handle. After all, they will be more or less concerned with the social services, and I can visualise the unhappy lot of a local representative if he tries to comply with one-tenth of the regulations in connection with those committees. That is a matter about which one has to be extremely careful. After all, the one thing that will ensure a sense of responsibility in a committee or local authority in the expenditure of rates is that the individual who stands over that expenditure will have to submit himself subsequently for sanction by the electors themselves, and to relieve him of that responsibility is an inducement to him to give way to sympathetic cases for which there might be no merit or foundation. I speak with some experience, and, as Deputy Brennan said, I would much prefer—even if it meant a certain amount of unwieldiness—that the responsibility should be brought home to these people by having to face the electorate. If they had to face the electorate you would be more certain of having that sense of responsibility than through nomination or selection.

In saying that, do not think that I do not appreciate very much those who serve on technical committees because of their experience and special knowledge, or on agricultural committees, but particularly on technical committees. They, however, are on an entirely different plane from those who deal with the social services and who have to face the importuning of people who may or may not be deserving, the cost of which cases will have to be borne by the public purse. That is a thing which, if not carefully handled and controlled by the central authority, will leave us with a very much larger and undefined expenditure. It must not be forgotten that conditions have altered within the last few years. You have the managerial system now, and you have the work of the board of assistance and board of public health being done by the county council. I do not anticipate that there is going to be any reduction in the work, but rather that there will be very much more work concentrated on the people who will be doing it. All those arguments go to show that the question of fixing the number of elected representatives is one that must be very carefully handled, and one headline that you must keep before you is that if any of these committees are to have the power of committing the council to expenditure you should have at least a strong majority of the elected members on it.

I think it is the usual experience that many members of a county council—I should say about 50 per cent.—generally refuse to act on any committee, and that leaves only a limited number of members who are called upon to attend to these duties. Often, it is a whole-time job for some of the elected members, with the result that the business is not done as it should be. If you have not a certain number to volunteer or to draw upon, you will find it is almost impossible to get elected members, with responsibility, to serve on those committees. I agree that you can get most admirable people by selection or co-option, but they do not act with the same sense of responsibility as the elected members, because the elected members are in closer touch with the finances of the councils, and know what it is to collect the rates and try to make their estimate fit in to their yearly budget. They are more closely in touch with financial matters, and take a responsible outlook on all matters of expenditure whereas the other people, as I said before, while they may be very admirable, do not mind driving up expenditure without any consideration at all, because they have no reason to consider it. That is why you need a certain number of elected members on each committee.

I was rather disappointed about one thing that the Minister said in connection with these sub-committees. I think he was alluding to those connected with social services and said that with the assistance of their managers they will be able to do a good deal of work that was formerly done by the boards of assistance and of public health. Is it possible for these non-elected committees-selected, if you like-with the assistance of the manager, to commit the local authority to an expenditure over which the local authority would have no control?

I think Deputy Allen's point is really a refutation of the whole thing, because what apparently is aimed at now is that if you have a sufficiently big council you will be able to get a few on it, at any rate, who are prepared to do the work of these committees.

Yes.

Well, if you cannot get that with, say, 25 members, there is little likelihood that you will get it with 30 members.

The more you reduce it the less chance you have.

I do not think there is any point at all in trying to get a big council with a view to having a sufficient number ready to do their duty as councillors. When it comes to a difference of five or six members of a council, I do not think it matters very much. In any case, this is an experiment, and there is an amendment coming on which will enable this to be modified from time to time. The reason we are reducing them at all is that there is a big amount of executive work that has been transferred over to the county manager. He will have certain duties that used to take up a considerable amount of the time of councillors and members of the boards of health. Deputy Broderick asked me would these people have the right to spend money with the assistance of the manager. They may, but then the county council has the rating to do, and you cannot spend money unless you strike the rate for it, and the county council will always have that power.

That is Deputy Broderick's objection.

Yes, that is my objection. If they can undertake expenditure without any authority, which the county council, through the rate collection has to make good subsequently, I think it is very serious.

What can be done except on the estimates? You have to pass the estimates.

Take home assistance, for instance. You have these committees dealing with home assistance. They can exceed the estimate, and I readily admit that there are times when that is necessary, but I suggest that that is a classic case of the local authority being committed to expenditure over which it has no control.

Amendment No. 31?

I want. Sir, to clear up this matter, because it is really a very important point. I am pointing out—and I am sure Deputy Allen will agree with me—one of the reasons why these committees were not availed of under the 1925 Act, and they are now to get authority from this House to commit the council to expenditure irrespective of the local authority.

This Bill does not give that authority.

Well, it was raised in the statement by the Minister on this Bill. I am asking your indulgence, Sir, because it is really a very important point.

I think the Minister will find that it will be a great mistake if he reduces the numbers. He cannot make any case for the reduction, and the fact that they are going to have less to do is no case.

Does the Deputy agree to amendment No. 31?

I suppose I shall have to, and withdraw my own amendment. At any rate, I shall not divide the House on it.

I move amendment No. 33:—

In page 14, to insert before sub-section (4) a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) The division of a county into county electoral areas made by an order under this section shall have effect for the purposes of the elections held next after the commencement of this section of members of councils of counties and thereafter.

I move amendment No. 34:—

In page 14, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:

(6) The Minister may by order amend or modify any division made by an order under this section (including an order under this sub-section) of any county into county electoral areas or alter the number of members of the council of any county to be elected by virtue of an order under this section (including an order under this sub-section) from any county electoral area in such county and every such amendment, modification, or alteration shall have effect for the purposes of the elections held next after the making of such amendment, modification or alteration and thereafter.

Will the Minister or the Department consult the local authority with regard to the fixing of the electoral areas? Will representations from the local authority be considered in relation to the fixing of the electoral areas? Will the view of the local authority on that matter be considered by the Minister?

Any representations made will be considered.

I know one area that is at least 50 miles in length. That could easily be altered, much to the advantage of the people living there. Such an alteration would serve the people better.

I move amendment No. 35:—

To delete sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) and to substitute a new sub-section as follows:—

The Minister shall by order fix the total number of members of any council of a borough, council of an urban district or commissioners of a town, define whether there shall be one or more electoral areas and the manner of election, including the number of aldermen.

The section sets out: "(a) if such number would, but for this section, be an even number greater than 19, one half of the said even number, and (b) if such number would, but for this section, be an odd number greater than 19, one half of the next whole number greater than the said odd number." This represents a reduction of 50 per cent. The Minister has not an amendment to this section of the same nature as amendment No. 34 and in that I see a very grave danger with regard to the fixing of the number of members for borough councils. It is much more important for the fixing of the number of members for borough council areas than for rural areas that the Minister should take the populations into consideration. The variations in rural populations are not very great from one year to another, but the position is different in a town of possibly 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants. The population in such a town may, because of the loss of some industry, be reduced by 50 per cent. and the Minister would still be tied by this particular section; whether there was an expansion or a contraction in the population he would still have to have a fixed number of members on the borough authority.

I do not know whether it has occurred to the Minister that, with the introduction of an industry into a town, there might be such an expansion of population as would justify an increase in the number of members of the borough authority. On the other hand, there might be an exodus of people because of some mishap to a local industry and the Minister might have to have a contraction in the number of members of the borough authority. The Minister should make some provision which will give him the right to alter the number of members rather than have a fixed number as is set out in the section. In that sense the section as it stands is, in my opinion, definitely bad. The Minister would be well advised to accept my amendment or introduce something similar which will give him the right to alter the number of members just as the population of a borough demands.

The Deputy is giving me a right here that he would not like to give me in the case of the county councils. He puts me in the position that I can reduce the number of members if I think it is necessary to do so. I am in agreement with the principle of the amendment. It gives me greater latitude. I am prepared to accept the principle and if the Deputy withdraws the amendment I will bring in one on Report covering the point.

I am quite satisfied.

We do not know in what form the Bill will appear eventually, the Minister having accepted the principle of Deputy Brennan's amendment, but there is one point that I would like to stress. I must confess that my ignorance of local government outside Dublin City is abysmal and I do not know, when you have excluded the boroughs that have been mentioned in sub-section (1), how many will be left. No matter how many are left, the Minister apparently visualises that he might have as small a council as one of nine members and yet, under sub-section (4), he is going to make the first four members of the council of a borough, aldermen of that borough. To me that seems ridiculous.

There will be none on a council where the membership is under nine.

Sub-section (2) sets out that the number of members shall be, "in any other case nine."

In any place where there are aldermen they have 24 members.

Why does the Minister, under sub-section (3), propose to make the one electoral area? There may be a predominance of representation on one side of a borough, leaving the other side unrepresented.

I move amendment No. 36:—

In sub-section (1), page 15, to delete in line 25 the words "no poll is taken", to insert in line 27 before the words "the number" the words "no poll is taken in any particular borough electoral area", to insert in line 27 before the word "shall" the words "elected from such borough electoral area", and in line 29 to delete the word "at" and substitute the word "from" and to delete the word "election" and substitute the words "borough electoral area".

This deals with election of aldermen.

I have only to say on this amendment that if I possessed powers of internment I would promptly intern the man who drafted it. It took nine lines of print to correct what was originally in five lines. We could have a whole new sub-section with much less print and much less trouble, and I expect it would be more readable.

Perhaps it would not be so detailed.

I agree.

I move amendment No. 37:—

Before Section 37 to insert a new section as follows:—

37.—(1) Where at the nomination of candidates at an election of members of a local authority either no candidates are duly nominated or the candidates duly nominated are less in number than the quorum for meetings of such local authority, such election shall not be proceeded with and Part IV of this Act shall have effect in relation to such local authority as if on the day on which such election was to have been held the members thereof had been removed from office under the said Part IV or, if such election is a new election within the meaning of the said Part IV, had again been removed from office under the said Part IV.

(2) Where in pursuance of sub-section (1) of this section an election is not proceeded with and such election would have been proceeded with but for a decision of the returning officer refusing to accept one or more nominations of candidates, the decision of the returning officer in respect of such nomination or any of such nominations (as the case may be) may be questioned by an election petition.

(3) Where the court trying an election petition in relation to an election of members of a local authority declares that by reason of a deficiency in the number of candidates duly nominated such election should not have been proceeded with, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(a) the said election shall be deemed not to have been held and the persons elected at such election shall be deemed not to have come into office;

(b) every act done during the period between the completion of such election and the determination of such election petition which was done by the persons or any one or more of the persons declared elected at such election and which purported to be an act of such local authority or an act done by virtue of the membership of such local authority of such one or more persons (as the case may be) shall be as valid and effectual as if all the persons declared elected at such election had been validly elected and qualified to act as members of such local authority;

(c) every such act which was done by an individual person declared elected at such election and subsequently declared appointed to the office of chairman, lord mayor, or mayor of such local authority and which purported to be an act done by virtue of the said office shall be as valid and effectual as if all the persons declared elected at such election had been validly elected and qualified to act as members of such local authority and such individual person had been validly appointed to the said office;

(d) subject to the provisions of this sub-section, Part IV of this Act shall have effect in relation to such local authority as if on the day on which such election was held the members thereof had been removed from office under the said Part IV or, if such election was a new election within the meaning of the said Part IV, had again been removed from office under the said Part IV.

(4) Where the returning officer at an election of members of a local authority refuses to accept one or more nominations and by reason of such decision such election is not proceeded with and a court trying an election petition questioning such decision declares that such decision was wrong and that such election should have been proceeded with, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(a) Part IV of this Act shall be deemed to have been in force pursuant to sub-section (1) of this section in relation to such local authority from the day on which such election was to have been held and shall continue so in force until the coming into office of the persons elected at the election held in accordance with the next following paragraph of this sub-section;

(b) the Minister shall, as soon as may be after the determination of such election petition, fix a day for the holding of an election of members of such local authority and such election shall be held on that day.

Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 really go together. They are drafting amendments in a sense, although they are very long ones. Section 37 is not being moved.

They do not materially affect the Bill?

They do not; they are really providing necessary machinery.

I move amendment No. 38:—

Before Section 37 to insert a new section as follows:—

37. Where, by reason of a deficiency in the number of candidates duly nominated in one or more electoral areas, the candidates who can be elected at an election of members of a local authority are less in number than the full number of members capable of being elected at such election but are not less in number than the quorum for meetings of such local authority, such local authority shall be validly constituted by virtue of such election notwithstanding the vacancies arising from such deficiency and such vacancies shall be regarded for all purposes (including the purposes of this Act) as casual vacancies caused by refusals immediately after such election to take office and shall be filled accordingly.

Section 37 is not being moved, as amendment No. 39 is being substituted. Section 37 is being deleted.

NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 39:—

Before section 38 to insert a new section as follows:—

38.—In lieu of sub-article (3) (repealed by this Act) of Article 5 of the Schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, it is hereby enacted that, at every election regulated by rules framed under the said order, the poll shall be taken by ballot and the enactments set out in the Second Schedule to this Act shall to the extent mentioned in the said Schedule and subject to any adaptations, alterations, and exceptions made by such rules apply in respect of such election in like manner as they apply in respect of a municipal election.

This has the effect of substituting the modern electoral code for the old system—that is, the system set up under the Local Elections Act of 1898.

I move amendment No. 40:—

In sub-section (1), page 16, to add at the end of line 7 the words "on the last day of the said period".

This amendment makes clear the date a refusal to accept office begins.

I move amendment No. 41:—

In page 16, to insert at the end of line 13 the words "or commencing at the same time as this section", to insert in line 14 before the word "enactment" the word "such", to delete all words from the word "in" in line 14 to word "commencement" in lines 16 and 17, and to delete in line 23 the words "as is mentioned in the foregoing paragraph".

This is a drafting amendment.

On sub-section (3) I should like to ask what provision the Minister proposes to make where an alderman ceases to be a member of a council and a person is co-opted to fill the casual vacancy. The sub-section says:—

Every person chosen under this section to fill a casual vacancy in the membership of the council of a borough shall hold office as a councillor whether the member of such council occasioning such vacancy was an alderman or a councillor.

Suppose there were five aldermen in the council and one died, or vacated the position for one reason or another, and some one was co-opted. He is a councillor. Would the council proceed to elect a new alderman, or carry on with four?

The usual practice was to co-opt a new man and then proceed to elect an alderman.

The new man would be elected as a councillor. I think the council would proceed to elect an alderman.

There is power, under another Act, for that?

It is provided in sub-section (3) that the new member shall be councillor only.

Except where elections are not held and there is an extension.

This is a casual vacancy.

The Minister is sure that we are not taking away that power in any of the portions that are being repealed?

I will make sure of that.

I move amendment No. 42:—

In sub-section (1), page 16, to insert in line 50 before the word "mayor" the words "lord mayor or".

This is a drafting amendment.

I move amendment No. 43:—

In sub-section (1), page 17, to insert the word "present" before the word "vote" in line 3, before the words "the candidate" in line 6, and before the word "and" in line 17.

I move amendment No. 44:—

In page 17, to delete sub-section (2).

This, together with amendment No. 43, enables a candidate to be proposed for the office of lord mayor, or chairman of a council, who is not present. He may be absent through illness or other cause.

This Section 41 clears up the anomalous position which has arisen where a council has not been able to elect a lord mayor?

Yes, in conjunction with Section 39.

The Minister has power to remove the local authority for not doing certain things. Am I right in saying that the term "local authority" includes the city manager, or the county manager, as the case may be?

No, only the elected members may be removed under the section.

And, of course, in some cases they are not the local authority at all.

If my original supposition were correct, that term included the county manager. He might not do a certain thing, the council might be removed, and that would include him.

I move amendment No. 45:—

In page 18, to delete sub-section (3).

This is consequential on amendment No. 37.

I move amendment No. 46:—

In page 19, line 8, to insert before the word "or" the words "for any reason other than a deficiency of candidates duly nominated".

It is not necessary to have an election petition declaring a new election by reason of an insufficiency of nominations. There is no point in it.

Sub-section (3) reads:—

So long as any permissive power to appoint a committee is exercisable under this section by a commissioner or commissioners, any statutory or other provision restricting the membership of such committee in whole or in part to members of a particular local authority shall be suspended.

I take it that the reason for that is that the commissioner will act on behalf of the persons who were nominated. Where a committee is nominated by a local authority and consists, as well as members of the local authority, of other persons, is there anything in the Bill which provides that they must go, or will they continue to act with the commissioner?

He can himself nominate.

I appreciate that, but when the local authority is dissolved, the members of that local authority who were nominated to the committee go, presumably, because they were dissolved; but there were other persons who were not members of the local authority but who have been nominated to that committee by the local authority. Is there any legislation in this Bill to provide for that?

That is at present dealt with under the 1931 Act. They remain.

And the commissioner takes the place of the elected persons?

Yes. The matter is dealt with in Section 57.

There is provision for remuneration of a commissioner. Is it intended, when the County Management Act is in operation, that as well as the county manager there shall be a paid commissioner, or will it be the case that the county manager is appointed a commissioner? Can the Minister say how such a position would be dealt with?

There may be a commissioner, of course, as well. I do not know whether it would be advisable that a manager should take the place of a commissioner, that is, that the manager should take the place of the council. I think it would be much more advisable to have a commissioner.

Then there would be two paid officials doing the work previously done by one paid official.

I would not like to be too definite about that matter, but they seem to have different functions. I do not think that a manager should be exercising the functions of a local body which are not reserved to him. You may have the position where a commissioner may have to remove a manager.

The Minister should take care of that.

A county commissioner will not have anything to do with a city manager?

No.

Will the Minister be in a position to transfer a city manager to another city if he considers it advisable?

That does not come under this at all, but I do not think he would.

What the Minister contemplates, apparently, is that if he felt it his duty to dissolve a local authority where there already was a manager, he would put in a commissioner to carry on the reserved functions of the commissioner. Then there would be a manager, a commissioner, and a county secretary—all paid by the ratepayers. It would be an expensive business if that happens.

Will the Minister not reconsider that particular clause in connection with the commissioner? It is not advisable for us to have, along with the county manager, a new official from headquarters. For the Minister's consideration, I suggest that a body of three members from the county should be appointed to do that sort of work. The local authority consisted of members who tendered their services without any payment. Now, if we are to have a manager, a secretary and a commissioner, all paid officials, it may be a very good system; but there is no doubt that it will give rise to grave criticism. The manager will be paid a fairly good salary and, presumably, if only to mark the importance of the commissioner, the commissioner would have to be paid in excess of that. In the present circumstances, there would be very grave criticism of that.

We may assume that the dangers or possible temptations which would affect local authorities will be limited under the manager's care. Viewing the matter from the administrative side the Minister ought to examine this matter again, if for no other purpose than to ensure that the managerial system will not start with a handicap. I will not prophesy what is likely to take place in the future with regard to administration by local authorities, but one danger is that when members of these bodies have before them the possibility of being removed from office, if they find themselves in conflict with the Minister on a few occasions, the tendency is to increase rather than to diminish such difficulties. The Minister knows well the marked difference there is in the Parliaments of the world which are subject to a veto on the part of the head of the State; that there is not the same responsibility usually borne by Parliaments in that position as by Parliaments where there is no overriding voice, where the head of the State as a matter of course signs Bills. Between now and the Report Stage the Minister ought to review this section.

With the managerial system in operation the commissioners would have very little to do. The executive is run by the manager. They would be paid, I imagine, very low salaries. I cannot see any objection to taking three persons from a local body and appointing them.

That is a very grave disadvantage. If it were possible to envisage a situation in which four or five local bodies were deprived of representation, and that one commissioner could do the work of these bodies, then the salary question would not be so important. For a start the Minister ought to consider whether it would not be as well to waive this proposal. If in the new measure the manager has extra powers for dealing with matters which give rise to a good deal of dissatisfaction from the administrative point of view, it is unlikely that the same opportunities will occur in the future. There is one grave defect about the appointment of commissioners that we might face up to. If public representation is of a kind that super-action has to be taken in connection with persons exercising administrative responsibility, it is a grave defect in our character and one of the things that appear to me to lend a lever to and to accentuate that position is the fact that they can be removed. It so happens that every country, as well as every local area gets the character of representation it deserves. Our efforts should be directed towards making representatives realise the importance of their position, to look up rather than to look down, and certainly not to go on with the exercise of their authority with a fear always before them that there is a danger of a public inquiry or of being dissolved in a few days. In this particular case, bearing in mind the new orientation which the managerial system is bound to effect, it might be just as well if the Minister for the time being made up his mind that he was not going to have commissioners at all. If it transpires that it is necessary to change from that attitude, he would have to consider the question of a re-organisation of local government. I put it to him from my experience of these matters that people will resent being governed locally by a paid official, however little time he may have to spend in that responsible task.

In the past when a commissioner was appointed, and when a council was deprived of office, I understand the Minister had no power to reinstate that council without holding an election. Would it not be well to take power to reinstate a council without the necessity of holding an election? There is no reason why the manager should not act as the council in case of an emergency. Why not make a manager a commissioner and let him perform the duties without having to bring in other people when a council went out of office? When there is a manager I take it that councils will not go out of office in the same way as in the past, because the manager will be carrying responsibility for administrative acts, and these bodies will not be liable to be removed. Why should not the manager assume the powers of the council by order of the Minister in such rare cases? Perhaps the Minister would define the position of such councils, without having an election held after a certain period.

I would be very glad if we could have the position that Deputy Cosgrave has in mind, that it would not be necessary to have commissioners at all. I am afraid we cannot contemplate that at this stage, no matter how hopeful we may be about a new orientation under the managerial system. It would be very desirable if it could be done, but we cannot, I think, face it just at the moment. Even in this House I have heard some members express very strong views about the managerial system. One member voiced such an intense dislike to the system that he said he would see it would not work in his particular county. I do not know if there was much in that. I think that when these schemes are put into operation people see the advantage of them. One of the troubles that I sometimes come up against is that I find some local authorities, not very many, will not strike a proper rate. Some urban councils and town commissioners give a little trouble in that way. Naturally they do not want to face a high rate. If you got the position in any county where a council got at cross purposes with the county manager, and in that situation refused to strike a proper rate to enable him to carry out his work, the position would be serious. That is the sort of thing we want to provide against here. I would be very glad to see the position in which it would not be necessary to appoint commissioners. However, you always have to bear in mind that clashes may occur in some place or other, and we have to take steps to provide against them.

I move amendment No. 47:—

In sub-section (2), page 22, to insert in line 36 before the word "and" the words "or by the lord mayor, mayor, or chairman (as the case may be) of such local authority by virtue of his membership".

The object of this is to make provision for the performance of any of the duties of a mayor or chairman while the members of his local authority are removed from office.

I move amendment No. 48:—

In page 23, line 43, to delete the word "Soldiers" and substitute the word "Sailors" and to delete the word "Sailors" and substitute the word "Soldiers".

I move amendment No. 49:—

In page 23, to delete in line 45 the words "on any person", to delete lines 51, 52 and 53, to delete in line 54 the words "such person" and substitute the words "the person liable to pay such amount to such local authority or such rate collector (as the case may be)", and in page 24 to delete lines 1 to 10.

What will the position of sailors and soldiers be now as regards the payment of rates?

They will have to pay the rates under this.

I do not see why anybody should be exempt. The people in the labourers' cottages have to pay their rates, and so should everybody else.

I take it this section covers the case of a member of a local authority not residing in the area he represents. If he is in arrears with his rates in the area in which he resides he will become disqualified as a representative of the other area?

Yes.

I move amendment No. 50:—

In page 24, to delete in line 14 the word "amount" and substitute the word "sum".

Is not this a very bad principle to adopt—to set off one sum against another in the case of a person who owes rates to a local authority?

You have some people earning money from local authorities and they do not pay their rates.

How would a person be affected who is paying a combined rate and rent if the landlord does not pay?

That is dealt with in amendment No. 51.

I raised that point on the Second Reading of the Bill.

I move amendment No. 51:—

In sub-section (1), page 24, to insert after line 17 and before the definition of "sum for rates" a new definition as follows:—

the word "rates" does not include rates due to a local authority, not being the commissioners of a town, in respect of a hereditament which is a small dwelling within the meaning of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928 (No. 4 of 1928), and which is occupied by a person who is not the owner thereof within the meaning of the said Act.

The object of this is to prevent a rate collector from distraining on the goods of the occupier of a small dwelling where the owner, on whom the rates are made, has failed to pay the rates.

Why is this confined to small dwellings? There are a lot of people, besides those who live in small dwellings, who pay a combined amount to include rent and rates.

What would be the position of a person who is regarded as living in a small dwelling and who has been accustomed to pay her rates independently for years? I know one case that has caused a considerable amount of confusion. The person in question is now pretty old. She had been paying the rates direct to the town rate collector. The latter is now demanding the rates off the landlord. There was no combined rent. When the landlord demanded the rates from the occupier, she objected and said that she was quite prepared to continue paying the rates to the rate collector. She objected because she thought she was going to lose something if she lost the status of a ratepayer.

She would not be liable.

The reason she is not liable is because the owner of the house is supposed to have included the amount for rates in the rent. This is a very old agreement and, apparently, it did not include rates. The old lady will pay rates directly but not the other way. I think that there is some restriction regarding rent and there is considerable confusion regarding the case.

Amendment No. 51 does not cover the case of a tenant who pays his rates in the rent to the landlord and whose landlord may not pay the rates.

It does not cover that case.

We raised that point on the Second Reading. It is a case that often happens. Anybody who is a member of a local authority must have come up against cases of landlords who collect their rents week after week, these rents including the rates. If the landlords do not pay the rates, are these tenants to be disqualified?

Are you referring to the case of a small dwelling?

There are large dwellings in respect of which rates are paid in the rent.

If the Deputy will send me an example before the Report Stage, I shall see if anything can be done about it.

These amendments fully meet the points raised by me.

I move amendment No. 55:—

In sub-section (2), page 24, to insert in line 30, before the word "either" the words "together with the costs".

The collector may be obliged to incur costs in distraining. This amendment enables him to levy the amount of the costs as well as the distraint.

I move amendment No. 56:—

To delete sub-section (3).

Sub-section (3) states:—

For the purpose of a levy by distress under this section, a rate collector may break open in the daytime any house or premises to which he has been refused admission or to which he is unable to gain admission by any other lawful means.

On Second Reading, there was an animated discussion on this sub-section. I know that some provision must be made for investigation by a rate collector as to whether there are means or not, but the matter should be covered in some other way than that proposed.

An income-tax collector has these powers under the 1918 Act and I do not see why a collector of local revenue should be in a different position. If there is persistent evasion, it is impossible to deal with it in any other way.

I move amendment No. 57:—

In sub-section (4) to delete all words after the word "and", in line 41, to the end of the sub-section and to substitute the words "shall apply to the local Gárda Superintendent for such assistance".

From reading this provision, I take it that a rate collector would be entitled to go to a Guard on point duty and tell him to come along with him. I do not think that there is any justification for that. A rate collector is entitled to the assistance of a Guard if he deems it necessary, but he should have to go to the proper authority to get that assistance. He should be obliged to approach the officer of the Guards immediately in charge in the district, and he should not be given authority to require an individual Guard to come with him.

I take it that the intention of the amendment is that if a rate collector finds himself in difficulty he should call on a Gárda superintendent to provide him with assistance. If he had to look for a superintendent, he might lose his distress.

Is it not stretching things far to say that a civilian shall be able to call on the services of a Guard?

He is an official and he has the right to collect these moneys.

If the Guard is new to the locality, he may not know the rate collector and he may be called upon by a person who represents himself as a rate collector.

The rate collector is getting only the same powers that an income-tax collector has.

But the income-tax collector never exercises those powers, which he has under the 1918 Act. That is an unmoral document.

Members of county councils know what the practice is. If a rate collector is going to levy distress, he notifies the Guards the night before, if he thinks he will require their assistance. There is never any real urgency in requiring the services of the Guards. I object to any civilian being given authority to walk up to a Guard and say: "Come along with me."

The collector may be assaulted and he may have to call the Guard in.

There is an obligation on the Guard under other Acts in that event.

Would the Minister consider providing for application being made to the local sergeant of the Gárda?

Or any other officer.

If the rate collector is operating five miles from the Gárda station, he will ordinarily have to make application there if he requires assistance. I think it would be reasonable enough to require him to apply to the Gárda sergeant.

A Guard might be on special duty when the rate collector would approach him.

In a case like that, the Guard may be relied upon to act properly.