Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 May 1926

Vol. 15 No. 17

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES) BILL, 1926—SECOND STAGE (RESUMED).

Motion made, and question again proposed: "That the Bill be read a Second Time."

Mr. WILSON

The Minister's object in introducing this Bill is to bring about an improvement in what is considered to be abuses of the present system—not an improvement of the abuses, but of the services. Taking the services of the local authorities generally, I have yet to learn that any system which will be introduced will give better returns than those you have at present. In some counties the present chief officers compare very favourably with the best officers in the Civil Service. I will pay that tribute to the officers of local authorities in my own county. Any scheme that is to be an improvement on some of the existing services will want to be a very good one. Generally speaking, we have no great exception to the appointment of chief officers under sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section 2, but we strongly object to interference with the rights of the county councils in the making of minor appointments. We object on behalf of the county councils to the central authority interfering in the appointment of other officers lower than those mentioned in the two sub-sections. We do not agree to the central authority taking these appointments out of the hands of the county councils. We contend that as the county councils supply the funds for these officers' salaries they should have the making of the appointments and should be the supreme authority, subject, of course, to the sanction of the central authority in Dublin.

We do not object to the setting up of a Public Boards Commission for the appointment of chief executive and other technical officers, but we contend that that Commission should send forward to the local authorities the names of one, two or three persons who are qualified for such appointments. In the case of a minor appointments the Commission should make a panel containing the names of one, two or three of the most desirable candidates. The local authority should have the making of the appointment, subject to the sanction of the Minister. If the Minister will amend the Bill to that extent we will support the Second Reading.

We consider that the effort being made to form what Deputy Johnson called a municipal civil service is a very poor one. In our opinion, entrance to a position under the county boards should be by way of qualifying examination, and all officers in the junior posts should have the opportunity, if they are capable, of promotion according to ability and service. So far as the Bill reserves appointments by local authorities to the local staff it is acceptable. But we believe that appointments to the higher offices should not be from outside. There should be gradual promotion from suitable people in service, and they should have the right to attain to the higher posts. Such a system is in operation in Dublin, and works very well. It has evolved your present Town Clerk, and it works under the Joint Committee of Grangegorman Mental Hospital. All the officers in these places enter through examinations held at the Technical Schools in Dublin, and there is gradual promotion from the lower posts to the higher. We consider that is the ideal to strive for. We do not agree to give the Minister the right of making these appointments, because the result will be that the local boards will not have the necessary authority over these officers. They will be more or less independent of the boards, as they are appointed by the Minister. The masters of these officers, even for disciplinary reasons, should be those who are conducting the business of the boards. In the Bill all the authority that is given is the right of suspension. That is not enough. The boards require to have the right of appointment. I agree that certain abuses have crept into the present system.

Mr. BLYTHE

What control does the right of appointment give over a man's work?

Mr. WILSON

If you take an ordinary county council in which there are several grades of officers, and if there is no right to say that a man by good service can get to a higher grade——

Mr. BLYTHE

That is in the Bill.

Mr. WILSON

It is to a certain extent in Section 5. We can appoint, but not in the old way. The Minister appoints. We have no right to make appointments.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (Mr. Burke)

You have in Section 5.

Mr. WILSON

To some extent, I believe. The point I was making is that outside men are going to be brought in over whom the board would have no control. That is an objectionable feature.

Mr. BLYTHE

The Bill does not interfere with the board's authority over the officers.

Mr. WILSON

It will inevitably have that effect. The central authority cannot be expected to elect suitable people. The county council is composed of men elected by Proportional Representation and consists of the best of every section in the community. These representatives cannot be expected to administer the affairs of the county council unless they are given real authority. We feel that that is where the central authority will be cutting across what we consider is necessary for the better working of the public utility services. Admittedly certain abuses crept into the system but that system was inherited from a people who have had long experience of government, and in practice it worked well. Take care that the new system will not be like that introduced for the amalgamation of workhouses, which has been, more or less, a failure and which is gradually developing back towards what was broken up in 1920.

Mr. BURKE

What is your authority for that statement?

Mr. WILSON

My authority is that every development lately has been towards getting back to the old system as it was before it was broken up. Take the district hospitals——

Mr. BURKE

I am not aware of it.

Mr. WILSON

I think I have made it clear that we do not object to the Bill where it deals with the appointment of technical officers. We consider that laymen are not capable of judging the qualifications and abilities of such persons. We believe that is a job for Commissioners but we say that the Commissioners should submit the names to the local authorities. If we could get the Minister to agree to that principle we would accept the Bill. Otherwise we will have to put down amendments on the Committee Stage with a view to attaining that end. I cannot see what injustice would be done by permitting the county councils who pay these men to have the right of making appointments. The Minister seeks to do away with canvassing. We are all opposed to that system. While we are opposed to canvassing we consider that the county councils should not lose the right of making appointments.

Mr. BLYTHE

It seems to me that Deputy Wilson has not sufficiently cleared his mind on this matter. The existing system is not a good one, apart altogether from what abuses it may have, and there will always be abuses in such a system. It is said that canvassing is not wanted, that in certain cases the lay board is not competent to decide between the best man and the worst man, and at the same time it is insisted that the system which produced canvassing and which laid these responsibilities on the lay board, which it is not fit to fulfil, should be continued. The talk about the indignity and insult to the county councils is just the talk that has been put forward by certain people in regard to the position of Ministers in their Departments. There are people who say that in his Department a Minister should make all appointments. In fact, at the present time a Minister can have full control in his Department, can carry out his policies, can do everything that a Minister should do, although he has no control over appointments. In my Department the men who are in office are either men I found there—and that would always be the position in regard to any county council—or the men who have been put there as the result of the operations of the Civil Service Commission. I do not feel that it is any insult to me that I am not allowed to make appointments. I do not wish to make them. But, in any case, looking at it in a broad way, you may take it that no Minister would fail to be influenced in the long run by the kind of pressure he would be subjected to if he had the making of appointments.

Mr. WILSON

The Minister's position is not analogous to that of a public body. The public body is the payer; it finds the funds to pay these men, and the Minister is only an official, so to speak.

Mr. BLYTHE

The Minister finds the funds just as much as the public body finds them. The public body is only a trustee for the people. Deputy Wilson has just disclosed the whole thing. The idea has grown up that the people who serve on public boards have a right to dispense patronage as a reward for their services.

Mr. BAXTER

Oh, not at all.

Mr. BLYTHE

At all events, the idea is that because people serve on public boards they have a right to put their friends into positions.

Mr. BAXTER

No.

Mr. BLYTHE

That is the idea. and whether they acknowledge it or not, that is what is at the back of the Deputy's argument. It is suggested that a panel of two or three names should be put forward to the public bodies. What argument is there in favour of that except that there should be canvassing, except that there should be an opportunity of putting in somebody who has a pull, who is not the best man? If the public board is not competent—and it is not competent to decide which is the best of a group of candidates for, say, a dispensary—it is not competent to decide between two or three names that may be put forward, and there is no reason in favour of the submission of a panel to the board other than that the board should be enabled to appoint people who are not the best because of reasons of influence or because of reasons of political affiliation. I feel that that is entirely bad. It is bad in the case of a Government Department that a Minister should have a choice and that he should appoint somebody who perhaps was clearly not the best person, simply because that person has some means of getting at him. There is a complete analogy between a Minister in charge of a Department and a public board. The Minister is a trustee; he is there simply doing the duty of the public, dealing with public money, money which is not his own. The public body is there as a representative of the ratepayers, and its members are dealing with money that is not their own. If it is not an indignity for a Minister, it is not an indignity for a public body.

There were great difficulties in introducing the competitive examination system into the British Civil Service; there was great opposition to it, but it was found to be an improved system, and it gradually spread. As a matter of fact, we have carried it a step further. It is really no argument to say that the present system of local appointments is an inherited one. That kind of system prevailed in the State service. It has been got rid of. It is a logical development that we should now carry into the local authorities' services the system that has been found good in the State service. I believe that in regard to local appointments, as in regard to State appointments, the object should be to get the best person for the service, and so far as possible, to have the appointments on the same uniform and consistent basis. There is no reason at all why the person who can use his influence should succeed, why the poor man's son should be prejudiced, rather than the rich man's son.

Deputy Baxter said that it was a scandalous thing to suggest that dispensary appointments should not be made by the votes of members of the local authorities. I heard of a case lately where dispensary appointments were made by a selection board, and the individual whose expression of view I heard was not one of those appointed. There were three appointments, and he came fifth or sixth, I think. He was asked what he thought about it, and he said: "I am very well satisfied. I have no influence. If it had been by the old method I would not have troubled to apply, because I would not have got sixtieth if there had been voting." There was a person, who had not been appointed, expressing himself highly satisfied with the result of it, and I believe that this development of the methods we have adopted in the Civil Service in the sphere of the local authorities will meet, in time, with the approbation of every section, that when the members of councils have had experience of it they will be pleased with it. People who desire appointments will, in the main, be pleased with it, because those who are defeated will be satisfied if somebody better than themselves gets the appointment, and it will be in the interests of the ratepayers. I think that we should not pay any attention to the kind of outcry that will arise from people who like to exercise patronage. There are always people who are pulling strings, and there have been people who pulled strings in the past.

Mr. BAXTER

And in the Minister's constituency particularly.

Mr. BLYTHE

I will deal with that. There was a case where we had for an important position two very good candidates. The whole county was canvassed for a year in advance. That is a most undesirable thing. I know in that particular case that there were people who did not go forward for election to the county council because they did not want to have to take sides. I think you will find that instead of having the result that Deputy Johnson indicated, of men refusing to go forward because these appointments are taken away from the local authorities, men who now do not want to have the trouble that they continually have of being canvassed will be ready to serve on the boards under the new arrangement. There seems to me to be absolutely no logic in the arguments of Deputy Baxter and Deputy Wilson. They admit certain abuses: they admit that the system is not perfect, that it has faults; and still, simply because there is a certain vested interest in question they do not want a change to be made, or they want us to go only half way, to take some step short of what is proper and necessary. The idea that there should be a panel is simply to try to leave those who like wire-pulling some power of doing it. Certainly it could give no other results. It is not proposed that the ordinary manual appointments should be made the subject of the operation of this Board. What are really concerned are the official appointments, those which correspond to Civil Service appointments. It is not necessary that there should be examinations for each separate appointment. For instance, if a number of county medical officers of health are to be appointed there might be one examination. The top man could then have his choice and the next man his choice, and in a great many cases it should be possible to deal with a series of appointments by means of the one examination.

Deputy Johnson referred to Section 10. That section is certainly not necessary to the spirit of the Bill. It is a section, as I understand, to meet with difficulties which might arise when the system is new through a council refusing to make an obviously proper promotion or refusing altogether to take some pensioned officer of its own or some local adjacent board who would be entirely suitable and whose employment would be a relief to the taxpayer, but when the system is working for some time there will be no need for the powers given in the section. There might be need for them in the beginning and that really brings me back to the question whether an appointment might be by the Minister or the local board. In the case of Government departments the appointment is by the Minister but no trouble occurs there. When a candidate passes an examination he is appointed in the Minister's name. The Minister probably does not hear about it; but you can anticipate the result if a name was sent down to a local authority and if they had to take a vote to make the appointment and if the name was not a favourable one. If the council were well canvassed and were in favour of somebody and if another name was sent down you would practically have to appoint a Commission before the appointment was made.

If the thing were working properly, and if you could depend on all the local bodies behaving reasonably and carrying out the spirit of the law as well as the letter, there would be no reason why the appointment should not be made and why the name should not be sent down to them. Someone would propose that the appointment be formally made and to have it passed without any trouble, but we know, in the circumstances, that if some positive act had to be done by the local authority just when these powers of patronage were taken from them, a great deal of trouble and debate would be raised. I know this is an Act which will probably arouse some little friction in the beginning, and that is a reason why the board is being set up. The Civil Service Commission were not willing to go into it, at least some of them. This is a new duty, because where any sort of dispute occurs, with the Department, it is settled by correspondence. If the dispute were to occur in future with the local board, you would have local papers with pages of the dispute, for a week at a time, and members of the Civil Service Commission do not wish to be dragged into the kind of controversy that might arise. That will only be a temporary thing, and will not last if Deputies will realise there is no necessary connection between the proper discharge of duties by a public board and control of appointments. Once a man is appointed, his position is the same in both cases, and is secure. They might have a greater control over a man who never canvassed any of the members, who had no faction on his side, and who came in there on his merits.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

According to Section 12 the boards will have no control over salaries. The Minister maintains the control over salaries.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not wish to deal with that section at present. I am dealing with the main question of appointment.

Mr. JOHNSON

Ten and twelve are the bones of contention. Will you abandon them both?

Mr. BLYTHE

I am not abandoning them, but I am pointing out that ten is a transitory provision.

Mr. JOHNSON

It does not say so.

Mr. BLYTHE

It is the sort of thing that will be experienced in getting a new scheme working. In regard to Section 12 the Minister has practically the same powers at present. I do not know in what way they differ. He has practically the same powers. At the moment we are talking about the principle of the Bill and what I conceive to be the principle of the Bill.

Mr. GOOD

Is the Minister correct in saying that the Minister for Local Government has the same power as it is proposed to give under this clause 10?

Mr. BLYTHE

Not clause 10, but clause 12.

Mr. GOOD

The Minister for Local Government, as I understand, has no power to request the local authority to appoint so-and-so.

Mr. BLYTHE

What I suggested is that the principle of the Bill is really, so far as it can be done, laying down that local appointments to positions under local authorities should be made in the same way as the appointments to the Civil Service of the State are made, and that this business of election by a board should be done away with just as appointments by a Minister have been done away with. I think that is the principle of the Bill. There are various subsidiary clauses and additional powers, but that is the central principle, and I think the House will certainly be refusing to help a most important and valuable reform if it does not accept the main principle.

Mr. CONLAN

From the attitude taken by the Minister it would seem to me at least that he is satisfied only with the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill. I look on this as a reactionary measure inasmuch as it deprives local bodies of their rights and powers which have been given them by the Local Government Act of 1898. As the House is aware, that Act was passed into law by the then Mr. Arthur Balfour, now Lord Balfour, and as we all know, he was no great admirer or lover of the Irish people. At the same time he thought it unnecessary to hamper local bodies, set up in that Bill, with all the restraints the Minister now seeks. It appears he had more confidence in the honour and integrity of the Irish public bodies than the present Government has.

A great deal has been said about the abuses which have crept into the present system. I have been in close association with the officials of the county in which I reside, and also with the staffs of public bodies of three or four other counties. I say, in point of administrative ability, and integrity, they can compare favourably with any body of administrators that can be set up under this Act. Deputy Wilson has dealt with the point that this measure is likely to undermine discipline in the staffs of local bodies. I think there is a good deal in that contention. People naturally look to those who have the right of appointment and the right of dismissal, and the attitude towards them will be in the degree that they consider them their masters. This Bill will deprive local bodies of the power and authority they have at present over those officials. A little time ago, under the Local Government Act, it was said that one of the chief reasons for bringing forward that measure was that certain local bodies such as district councils and boards of guardians were created. We had a change in the system.

We have recently had an election for men to act on the county councils and their various committees, and now it appears that these recently elected bodies are also suspect and that the Minister is not prepared to trust them in making even minor appointments. There is one thing certain and that is that this measure is, and will be, resented in the country by men who have very exacting duties to perform and who have to give a considerable portion of their time to the transaction of these duties. It is very poor reward for the sacrifices which they make to conduct the business of the country to be deprived of the little authority which they possess at present. This Bill is a step towards centralisation, of which the Government is so enamoured. As has been stated by other Deputies on these benches, we do not object to anything in the way of getting the best men that can be got for election, but, at the same time, we hold that, when a certain number of men have proved themselves to be up to the standard and to be eligible for election, the right of appointment should rest with the local body. It does not follow that because a man passes an examination and, perhaps, comes out first in it, he is going to be a good administrator. The Minister for External Affairs is not present in the House at the moment but if he were he would probably confirm what I am going to say regarding the experience of another State which has gone in for examinations to such an extent that no man can get any post without passing an examination. I allude to the Chinese Empire—I believe it is the Chinese Republic now. They have not got very far as a result of their system of examination.

Mr. GOOD

That is not a Free State.

Mr. WILSON

It is a Republic.

Mr. JOHNSON

It is held by the European Powers.

Mr. CONLAN

Probably we may soon have a state of affairs here in which every second man in the street will wear a yellow button, or whatever corresponds to it here. I think the Government would be well advised to meet the views of those who represent public bodies or who represent, at least, a very important section in the composition of such bodies.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Deputy Conlan commenced his speech by describing this Bill as reactionary, and he proceeded to make about as reactionary a speech as I have listened to in this Dáil since its inception. He quoted the Local Government Act of 1898 as a kind of Magna Charta of jobbery.

Mr. CONLAN

It was a Magna Charta for local bodies.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Incidentally, he spoke of Mr. Arthur Balfour, now Lord Balfour, as its sponsor. It was, of course, Mr. Gerald Balfour who piloted that particular Bill. You had throughout Deputy Conlan's speech the hanging on to vested interests, the sturdy struggle for the right to appoint the fifth best man for personal reasons. That is what it comes to. This Bill, when adopted, will mean the general raising of the standard of public service throughout the country as administered by local authorities.

Mr. JOHNSON

The people have no right to go wrong.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The people here, through their representatives, can do wrong in rejecting this Bill if they think fit to do so.

Mr. CORISH

Dev. would not do it as good.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I think Deputy Conlan rather gave away his case when he told us that this Bill is being resented in the country. Resented by whom? By men who are performing arduous duties, and who consider it a poor reward for those duties to remove the discretion, at present vested in them, in the matter of public appointments, so that the right to make public appointments, according to Deputy Conlan's idea, is the reward for the performance of arduous and exacting duties. It is the sugar-coating to the pill of public service.

Mr. WILSON

It is the authority they have that is their reward.

Mr. BLYTHE

Authority to appoint.

Mr. CONLAN

Is the Government never anxious to exercise patronage?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

No, the Government came here and deliberately and with malice aforethought divested themselves of all shreds of patronage.

Mr. MORRISSEY

When the offices were all filled.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

What offices were filled? We came here in the early lifetime of this Parliament with a Bill constituting the Civil Service Commission. The fact is that up and down the country members of public bodies, members of farmers' unions, and members of other organisations, have been talking about an orgy of jobbery and about appointments to the public service on grounds other than a man's capacity to perform the particular function assigned to him. There is the acid test of the sincerity of that talk. Are the local bodies prepared to do as Ministers have done, namely, to do their jobs with staffs supplied by a competent tribunal and to divest themselves of patronage, in the same way as Ministers, by their own will, have divested themselves of it?

Mr. WILSON

Yes, we have agreed to that.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The Deputy has agreed to it to this extent, that he would like four or five names sent down, and he would like to have the right to appoint the fifth best man for personal reasons.

Mr. WILSON

You cannot appoint a fifth man out of four.

Mr. BAXTER

What about a Minister who can refuse sanction?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

On this question as to who performs the formal act of appointment, if appointment is to be automatic on the recommendation of the tribunal, does it matter in whom it lies? If the person is nominated by the Commission, is it a material point who performs the formal act of appointment? The reason for prescribing in the Bill that that act shall be performed by the Minister is the reason given by the Minister for Finance, namely, that where a name is sent down, which is not the name that was desired by a majority of a particular local body, you are courting the position that they will refrain from making that particular appointment, and you do not want simply to court that kind of clash to secure that where the appointment is duly made, you would almost have to dissolve the local body and appoint a commissioner.

The main principle of this Bill is to secure that people will be appointed to the public service on merit, and merit alone; that the personal equation will be eliminated, and that the public will get, in the various services that are under the auspices of the local authorities, the best men to perform the duties. That is what matters to the public, whether we take health in the case of dispensaries, sanitation in the case of engineers, or the work performed by officials under the county boards of health in the administration of the poor relief Acts. It does matter, and matters very vitally, to the public that men shall be appointed because of their qualifications, because of their competence to perform the office rather than because of the accidental circumstance that their aunt married a cousin of some member of a local authority. Deputy Connor Hogan can take Deputy Conlan, Deputy Baxter and Deputy Wilson out to the lobby for a few minutes and have a little quiet talk with them as to the degree to which men are appointed to public positions because of reasons of that kind, and perhaps when they come back they can make another speech and tell the Dáil that on the whole they are inclined to reconsider their position.

Mr. CONLAN

We would be out of order.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The purists in administration, the men who have been waxing censorious on the score of jobbery which did not exist, have an opportunity now.

Mr. BAXTER

Who are those men? Are they in the Dáil?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

They are out through the country in the Farmers' Union branches and Deputy Baxter knows them. Now, here is an opportunity for raising the whole tone and standard of public life in this country, for setting a headline of decency in the public life of the country and securing that public appointments will be made impersonally on merit alone, and yet Deputies hang back and talk about their Magna Charta of 1898 and of Gerald Balfour and describe this Bill as reactionary. Deputy Conlan ought to be ashamed of himself.

Mr. CONLAN

I think that expression is hardly in order. I have no reason to be ashamed of myself.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I do not think the remark of the Minister that Deputy Conlan ought to be ashamed of himself was meant in any personal way. I am sure, if Deputy Conlan objects, the Minister will withdraw.

Mr. CONLAN

I did not take it in that way.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I may say, with regard to remarks generally, that the Chair has to take the context into consideration before deciding whether a particular remark is out of order.

Mr. CONLAN

I regard it as a slip of the tongue.

Mr. CORISH

To my mind this Bill is another effort on the part of the Local Government Department to filch, little by little, from local boards throughout the country any authority that they possess. The tendency of the Local Government Department in this House for some time past has been to treat the local authorities all over the country as so many children. In my opinion this Bill gives the Minister powers, the extent of which Deputies will not fully realise until they are found in operation, and then they will see that they are against the best interests of their constituents. The Bill gives the Minister more power than he is aware of himself. Different interpretations can be placed upon this Bill, interpretations different to those which have been expressed either on this side of the House or on the Government side. The discussion that took place on Section 2 bore upon the appointment of a medical officer, town clerk or secretary to a county council. I would like to point out that in paragraph (c) of that section the Minister can take upon himself to appoint even a street-cleaner. In my opinion that is going a little too far. Deputies on these benches, as well as on the Farmers' benches, have already stated that we are out to get the best results so far as appointments to public boards are concerned. The Minister for Local Government said last night that the Government had divested themselves of patronage. In my opinion the Minister is investing himself with patronage under this Bill. As far as I can see, it is not the men who come out on top at examinations who are going to be appointed under this particular scheme. The names of three or four men may be sent up to the Minister, but according to the Bill the Minister will have the right to ask for certain qualifications, apart altogether from the results achieved by means of a competitive examination.

For instance, it is the policy of the Department and of the Government at the moment to see that ex-Army men get preference in jobs. I think the Government know that I am not against ex-Army men or ex-Army officers as such; but, take it that the names of six or seven men are sent up by this particular Commission; the seventh name on the list may be that of an ex-Army man, and because of the policy of the Government in this connection the seventh man must, I think, be appointed at this particular time. I do not think that is the way to get the best results, nor do I think that in that way you are going to get the best possible men for a particular job in a particular area. The Minister talks about vested interests and of doing away with canvassing. As a member of a public board for a considerable time, I must say that canvassing is a nuisance. There is no question about that, and in my opinion it should be regarded as a disqualification in the case of a candidate seeking a position. I have advocated that time and again. What really is being done under this Bill is, that a manager, or what is tantamount to a manager, is being appointed over the public boards. You cannot expect to get loyal service from a servant who is put in to act over the heads of the local authorities, and that is what is being done here. It is all very well to talk about loss of dignity. It is not altogether a question of dignity. Surely, the men who have been trusted with the confidence of the people and who were elected to represent certain areas, have the right to appoint their own officers. They pay the piper and they ought to have the right to call the tune and to make their own appointments.

As I have stated, we want to get the best men possible for public positions. The Labour Party has always advocated competitive examinations, but this cannot be described as a system of competitive examination in its entirety. It is giving patronage to the Minister, and though the Minister himself, as well as the Minister for Finance, and the Minister for Justice have said that they are trying to get away from that it is absolutely patent in this Bill that patronage is being given to the Minister under it. That is clear in Section 2 and in other sections of the Bill. It may be the intention of the Minister to have the best people appointed, but from reading the Bill that is not the impression that one gains from it. I cannot support the Bill, and for the reasons I have stated, I propose to vote against the Second Reading.

Mr. DWYER

I desire to congratulate the Minister in bringing forward this Bill. I have been a member of public boards for a great number of years, and from my personal experience on them, I can say that one of the greatest curses we have in the country is this system of canvassing for public appointments, whether in connection with county councils or other public bodies. Not long ago there was an appointment of a medical officer to be made in a certain local area. Three or four gentlemen offered themselves for the position. We found in the end that the man elected was the one who had the greatest pull and was the most incompetent. Recently an election was held for an appointment under the county council in my district. There were five applicants for the position, and I must say that the most incompetent of the five was elected owing to the pull that he had. I congratulate the Minister on bringing in this Bill, and I propose to give him all the support that I can in connection with the measure.

Mr. D'ALTON

I have been listening to a number of speeches in connection with this Bill, and particularly one from the Minister for Justice, who talks of the high standard to which he is going to raise the administration of public affairs, higher than ever was the dream of the men we followed in the past. His idea with regard to raising the standard of national life and public spirit is to tell the people that the abuses that have occurred in the past in some of our public bodies are likely to continue unless the people on the public boards who act with justice and firmness in the best interests of the country are told they are not to be trusted. These representatives on public boards have been elected by the people as the custodians of their affairs but they are to be told they cannot be trusted unless they are under the direction of a master mind that can say. "You can go so far but not further." In this matter the Minister is simply putting a pitchfork before the tide. If there are boards in Ireland that do not do their duty it is for the people to get rid of their representatives on these boards. If authority to make appointments is to be vested in the Minister for Local Government it will be found the type of candidate that should go forward for service on those public boards will not do so. You will get the type of candidate who will act with a sense of duty to the ratepayers, the public and himself. He will not go on public boards as a mere nominee, a man who has no authority at all. Why should he under such conditions waste his time by going on public boards?

Unfortunately there are not enough of the best men going on public boards, as anybody acquainted with public affairs knows and regrets. This is not a matter of to-day or yesterday. It dates back for many years. It applied not only to the Dublin Corporation but to various parts of the country. The patronage of that time, without which nothing could be got, was exercised by the English garrison. We want nothing of that. We believe in competitive examination as the means of appointing the right man, and not appointing a man because he happens to be locally connected. If positions are given to people who are not qualified, simply because they have relations on the public boards. I say it is a pity. People in the Free State would have little regard for their dignity if they continued to appoint to positions men who are not qualified.

My idea is that the county council or other local bodies when filling a vacancy should make a selection from the candidates and send them to the Local Government Department to undergo examination. The Local Government Department could then send down the names of those who are qualified for the position, and if an appointment were made in that way it could not be said that a person was appointed who was not qualified. I do not see anything wrong with selecting from five or six candidates sent up two or three of the best qualified men after competitive examination. Of course you may get an assistant secretary of a county council who has a better knowledge of the work than any man who can be appointed through this system of examination in Dublin, for he has acted for years in that capacity. In all such cases, where a man has a record it should be a question of promotion.

Mr. BURKE

Why not promote him?

Mr. D'ALTON

I would support the promotion of a man who has given entire satisfaction to the council, and I believe that would be the best thing for the ratepayers and the public. I do not believe in central control. I do not believe in taking from local bodies affairs that should be in their hands. I believe that any officer of a local body who does not do his duty should be dismissed immediately. No local authority should retain in its service a man who is not doing his work, and by acting on that principle you would have the right class of official administering affairs. I do not believe in this Bill, which is taking control out of the hands of the people elected. At the last election there was no question of centralisation. There was no idea that local bodies were to be superseded and Commissioners appointed. If these local bodies cannot be trusted, if they have no idea of what their civic duties are, I would be in favour, after they had been given a fair opportunity of improving and doing their duty, of making a change, whether by the appointment of the Commissioners or otherwise. If the time comes when local bodies will not use their powers as they should be used, then I say it would be the time to act, but to take that power out of their hands otherwise would not be fair to the ratepayers who have elected these representatives on public bodies to administer rates that are raised by themselves, subject to the control of the Local Government Department. I do not believe that the Bill is necessary at the present time. I certainly do not approve of clauses 10 and 12, and I will refuse to vote for a Second Reading.

Mr. P.J. EGAN

I wish to say that I thoroughly welcome the general principle of this Bill. It has been called reactionary by Deputy Conlan and other speakers, but to my mind it is an infinitely greater indication of reaction to continue a system which has been undoubtedly a miserable failure. I have no hesitation in saying that the system of appointing officers in local bodies is a dismal failure, and that nobody realises it more than the candidates for these positions themselves. I have some experience of public boards and public bodies, and I would venture to assert that the vast majority of county and urban councils throughout the country, so far from resenting this Bill, will welcome it from their hearts, because if it did nothing else it will relieve them of the intolerable nuisance of canvassing which goes on in connection with these appointments and which none of us who are public representatives can get away from.

Mr. BAXTER

In future they will be canvassing the Deputies.

Mr. EGAN

Public representatives are assailed from all directions in connection with these appointments. If you do not vote for the relatives of your friends on a council they will boycott your funeral. I thoroughly endorse the principle of competitive examination. I notice that nearly all the Deputies who spoke wanted to get good men. Still all the opponents of the Bill want to perpetuate a bad system. That is not consistent. I consider that the Dáil will be doing a good day's work for the local administration of the country by supporting this Bill. I firmly believe that it will lead to cleaner administration.

Mr. WILSON

May I ask the Deputy if he can mention where the dismal failures have been?

Mr. EGAN

Has Deputy Wilson no knowledge of the humbug that went on in connection with the election of medical officers — the canvassing, bribery and corruption that we all know about?

Mr. BAXTER

Have the officers been a failure?

Mr. B. O'CONNOR

I would like to deal with the remarks of Deputy D'Alton. He mentioned that public boards are so perfect that they require no order, so to speak, from headquarters, so that they should have a free hand. A little while ago I sat on a Commission that was set up by the Dáil to help to straighten out the machinery to administer a certain Act. A member of a public board was one of the witnesses examined, and he admitted before that Commission that in the public board of which he was a member, the general rule was that they would act the good fellows, when certain claims came before them that they would pass them, knowing that the Government would hold the big stick still in their hands and turn down those things that they had approved of in their spirit of generosity. There is that feeling in public boards. I am a member of a public board, and I know that not very long ago the Local Government Department drew our attention to a certain case in which one of our officials absented himself, and was not doing his work. It came before the board and the feeling there was to be good fellows. "We will reinstate him," they said. "It is a slip. He is a good fellow just the same. Of course, the Government are right, but at the same time we must keep him on." Deputy D'Alton is not quite at home in his remarks about the perfection of the public boards, and I think it is well that we have a higher authority than public boards to give people their rights.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy O'Connor has not said a single word about appointments.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I might as well follow what has been said by most of the other speakers, by saying that I, too, support the principle of this Bill. I would go further, and say that so far as I am concerned, if Sections 10 and 12 were removed from the Bill, I would vote for it.

Mr. BURKE

Section 12 is there already.

Mr. MORRISSEY

It is one thing to have it there and another thing to exercise it. What I really want to point out to the Dáil is the tendency of these measures that have been introduced by the Minister for Local Government. It seems to me that it is leading up to the abolition of local bodies in this country, and centralisation. It seems to be the belief of the present Ministry that the ratepayers of this country are not able to elect to local bodies men who are prepared and able to do their work honestly and well. Following that out, if the people of the country are not able to put men on the public bodies to do the work of those local authorities in a proper way then they certainly are not able to do the work of electing people to a national assembly. The people who voted in the Ministry are the people who voted in the local authorities. There is this whole principle underlying every action of the Ministry, that they are infallible, and that not only are they able and fitted to do the national work, but they are also able and fitted to do the work of the local authorities.

The Minister for Local Government, and two of the three ex-Ministers for Local Government—perhaps it is one of the explanations of this peculiar Local Government legislation that we have a Minister for Local Government and three ex-Ministers for Local Government, notwithstanding the short time that the State is in being—all emphasised the point that they have done away with patronage. Apparently they are sorry they did that, and they want now to exercise patronage in connection with the local authorities. That appears to me to be the position. I am prepared to agree, to a very large extent, with Deputy Egan. I do not claim to have as much experience of public boards as he has, but I was a member of local bodies for a number of years, and I agree that the system of canvassing and bribery was certainly nothing short of a public scandal and that any fair measures that can be taken to eliminate it should certainly have the support of every public-spirited man.

Mr. MICHAEL DOYLE

I wish to repudiate the statement of Deputy Egan. He alleged that through all the public bodies of the country——

Mr. EGAN

Not all.

Mr. DOYLE

He said that the public bodies throughout the country were a miserable failure.

Mr. EGAN

On a point of explanation, I said the system of appointing officers.

Mr. DOYLE

I did not think he expressed himself to that effect. If I did, I would not have risen at all. I have had some experience of public boards. For the past thirty years I have sat on the premier public board in my own county and I must say that in that time I have never witnessed one case of corruption or bribery. I do not think that the Bill introduced is going to improve things in the least in our county as far as corruption, bribery, or anything like that is concerned. We do not, at all, wish to put men who are not suitable into these positions. We are quite agreeable to try and get the best men, but we would like to have the final selection of these men left to the boards. I do not believe that the Bill will make for any great change in local government in any shape or form, except in some counties, such as the county represented by Deputy Egan, where bribery and corruption are rampant, according to him.

Mr. EGAN

On a point of explanation, I did not state any particular county where bribery or corruption——

Mr. JOHNSON

You said that you had several years experience of public boards.

Mr. EGAN

It is a well-known fact.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We are not dealing with bribery or corruption in general or with public bodies in general but with the system of making appointments by public bodies. Anything else is irrelevant.

Mr. DOYLE

A lot has been said about the system of canvassing for public positions under public boards. To my mind the county councils could stop that without this Bill. I know in my own county we stopped it. We made it illegal. We let every candidate know that if he canvassed he certainly would not be eligible for the position and to a very large extent we stopped canvassing throughout the county. Why should not other county councils do this if they are so troubled by canvassing? We are not troubled to that extent at all. We simply let them put their qualifications before us by letter but not otherwise. Any candidate who is found to be canvassing directly or indirectly is simply disqualified for the position. I do not see why other county councils could not carry out the same rule in their counties. Therefore, I hold that the Bill, to a certain extent, is not wanted; at least it is not wanted in a good many counties. The Bill has been before the public bodies in my county and they all declare that it is not wanted, that they are getting along well, that they have good officers in every position they hold. You cannot heat their officers in any county in the Saorstát. They were all appointed by the local authorities and they are well able to do their work.

Mr. RODDY

I rise to support wholeheartedly the principle underlying the Bill although in some respects it is not a very admirable production. It is time that some steps should be taken to remedy abuses in connection with local appointments. Members of the Dáil who have experience of local affairs must agree that canvassing is the bane of their existence and that in the overwhelming majority of cases it means that the candidate with the greatest influence behind him will get the vacant position irrespective of qualifications. The candidate without the pull or the poor man's son, to whom the Minister for Finance referred a moment ago, will be left out in the cold no matter what his abilities are. I cannot conceive a fairer method of selection than that indicated in the Bill and already it is my experience that where examinations have been held in connection with appointments which occurred quite recently under public boards, the candidates selected have given entire satisfaction and this method of selection is working out successfully. Everyone will agree who has experience of local administration that the successful working of public bodies depends almost entirely on the chief executive officer, and in my opinion the severest test ought to be applied in order to ensure that the most capable and the best qualified candidates available are appointed to these positions, because, after all, no matter how experienced a county council may be and no matter what the capabilities of its chairman are, unless you have a highly capable and highly efficient chief executive officer you cannot have successful administration in that county.

Admittedly the success of the administration depends entirely on the abilities and the capacity of the chief executive officer. I do not see any other means of selecting the most highly qualified and most capable candidate except by examination. The Minister stated in his Second Reading speech yesterday that the Bill was urgent in view of some appointment to be made in each county in the near future. I refer to the county medical officers of health. I think the members of this Dáil who are medical practitioners will agree that there is room for a great deal of improvement in the medical services in the country, and the best way to secure that improvement in these services is to see that the most highly qualified man that it is possible to obtain should be appointed. The county medical services will be under his control and it will be his duty to remedy whatever defects exist in the present system. An appointment of that kind could not very well be made by the county board of health or by the county council. It follows naturally that some board of specialists should be set up for the purpose of making this appointment. It is not sufficiently clear whether the Bill applies to boards of health, which, as far as I am aware, are statutory local authorities under the Local Government Act of 1925. Owing to the transfer of many functions which were heretofore performed by the district councils, the members of such a board will have a monopoly of local appointments, and it is necessary in the interests of efficiency in administration that some at least of the more important appointments should come within the scope of this Bill. The same thing applies, of course, to the secretaries of old age pensions committees, except the position of secretary to the County Old Age Pensions Committee.

Another important item in the Bill is the appointment of Commissioners. I take it that there are not to be more than three local Commissioners for the whole of the Saorstát. Such a number, in my opinion, would be quite sufficient. This is a point that is not made clear in the Bill on account of the word "local" being used. There is not sufficient information in the Bill as to who the Commissioners are to be, what their qualifications are to be, whether they are to be on the basis of whole-time experts and paid a salary accordingly, or whether their actions may be scrutinised by any authority. I would also like to know whether they are to be chosen from any particular profession, and whether they are to have a knowledge of the Irish language, which is the official language of the country. These are points that are not very clear from reading the Bill, but I assume the Minister in his concluding statement will deal with some of these points at least.

I think in this Bill, perhaps, there is too much authority left in the hands of the Department and the Executive Council. In my opinion, one of the Commissioners ought to be a lawyer with a degree other than a legal degree. Another to look after the health services throughout the country should be a doctor with a diploma of public health. I should say that both of these men should have at least ten years' experience in their respective professions. I think that is a very important point, as the success of this measure will depend to a large extent on the types of men you select as local Commissioners. I would suggest that the third Commissioner should be a lady. There are certain reasons in view of the nature of the public health services why a lady should be one of the members of this body.

There is no doubt there is a great deal of opposition—there seems to be a certain amount, at any rate—to this Bill in the country. Local authorities undoubtedly have the feeling that the tendency on the part of the Department of Local Government and Public Health and its officials in Dublin, is to centralise all matters at headquarters here. In order to overcome that objection and make the Bill more palatable to them, I would suggest that the chairman or vice-chairman of the local authority concerned should be invited to sit with the Commissioners when dealing with any appointments. This would establish a point of contact between the local authority and the Minister, and, in addition, it would give the public a direct interest in the work of the Commissioners. In that way you would help to remove a good deal of the suspicion that will inevitably arise when this Bill becomes law; that suspicion is bound to continue for some time after the Bill is given legal effect to, and it is desirable to remove it.

Deputy Wilson, in the course of his speech, referred to the non-success of the amalgamation of unions. I do not know whether Deputy Wilson has had any experience of amalgamation schemes. I was concerned——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy Wilson was merely illustrating an argument. We are not discussing the amalgamation of unions.

Mr. RODDY

I do not think there is any other point in the Bill that I wish to deal with; most of the other points have been dealt with at length by other Deputies. I certainly think the Bill needs to be amended considerably in many of its sections, and I think that the Minister, when he is making his concluding statement, should be a little more explicit, especially with regard to the payment of Commissioners.

Mr. WOLFE

As I was a member of nearly all the public bodies in Kildare for twenty-eight or twenty-nine years, I feel I should be wanting in my duty if I did not give my opinion on this Bill for what it may be worth. Most people who have had anything to do with local government in this country in the past must be of opinion that in regard to the appointments that were made a great deal of exception could be taken to the method of making the appointments. Many years ago I was of opinion that some system such as is brought forward in this Bill ought to be adopted. There ought to be some competitive system so that the best and most efficient man would be appointed, and not one who would be selected merely for his personal popularity, or, perhaps, because of the influence his people were able to exert in his behalf.

I think the conditions that existed in regard to appointments were most undesirable. In many cases the matter of efficiency was clean lost sight of in the desire to appoint a certain person. Most of us are aware that in connection with the appointment of doctors there was open scandal all over the country; everybody was canvassed to such a degree that one had almost to hide in any backway or hedgeway in order to get out of the way of canvassers. I remember on one occasion, while a strike was on, being pursued by two parties who were canvassing for doctors, and I recollect having great difficulty in evading them. I think it is most undesirable that that sort of thing should continue.

Mr. J. CONLAN

Does the Deputy allege that bribery has been practised in his own county?

Mr. WOLFE

I do not allege bribery at all, but I allege that undue influence has been used. It is not for the national good or for the good of a county that popularity in a candidate should be the only thing considered. We should go in for efficiency. We are spending public money and we ought to get the best value possible for it. In the past I always thought that was not done, except sometimes by chance. When I say that I do not mean that some of the appointments were not very excellent ones; but the method by which the appointments were made was certainly most undesirable. I think this Bill will go a long way towards removing certain inequalities and the wrong methods of selection which were in operation.

There are one or two things that the Government has done especially well. One good thing was the removal of J.P.'s. That has made for clean administration of justice and a more even distribution of justice. I think this Bill, which aims at having the best men appointed, the men with the most ability, is a good second. I hope that out of this measure will come a great advance in the purity and better administration of local government.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I would be in favour of this Bill if it proposed to set up a system of local Civil Service, but it does not do so. It proposes to give the Minister, acting through the local appointments committee, the power of filling senior appointments on the local boards; it gives power in respect to all appointments, but the greater number of positions to be filled will probably be senior positions. I think the House will recognise that a system of competitive examination may be a good one when you come to deal with junior appointments, with young men fresh from school; but when you have to deal with men who are to fill responsible posts requiring a good deal of administrative ability and other qualities, the system of competitive examination forms an insufficient test, and is not a suitable means of finding out the candidate best qualified. I maintain this Bill is not serving any useful purpose.

Mr. BURKE

Read Section 9.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

The Minister is taking away power from the local boards. He is taking that power into his own hands, acting through the Civil Service Commission. As I view the matter, it is simply taking the power of patronage from the local boards and placing it in the hands of the Minister, and the canvassing which in the past took place with local representatives will, in the future, be transferred to the Minister.

I look upon this Bill in its present form as practically a vote of censure on the new councils recently established. Under the Act of 1923 we set up a number of new councils with much greater powers and responsibilities than had been attached to those bodies in the past. The members of these boards faced extremely difficult problems of economy, retrenchment and re-organisation, following on a system in regard to which the Minister for Local Government and the members of his Party cannot avoid responsibility. They cannot avoid responsibility in regard to the chaos and semi-chaos that had arisen in many boards, and particularly in regard to their financial commitments. Under the Act of 1923 we started on a new system. We have given greater powers and responsibilities to those new bodies, and the first thing that the Minister does, following this, is to bring forward a Bill which is in effect a vote of censure upon, and a lack of confidence in, these boards.

The Minister will say, of course, that these appointments will not all be made by competitive examination, that there is also power in the Bill to deal with applicants in other ways besides that of competition. That is so, but I maintain when it comes to dealing with applicants by other courses than those of competition the proper people to deal with them are the local representatives. They are the men acquainted in most cases with the candidates, their qualifications, character and general administrative ability; they are the proper men, and not this Commission to whom the candidates will be practically unknown when they come forward. The local representatives are the men who should be in a position to select the candidates best suited, in every sense, to fill the appointments that are proposed to be filled.

The Bill as it stands does not meet with my approval. I believe the underlying principle of the Bill is reasonably sound; that we ought to try and arrive at some method whereby we can select a man because of his merits. But I do not see that this Bill is going to provide that. We are going to have a local appointments commission set up. That commission may be composed of civil servants, officers possibly taken from the different Departments concerned. Are we to take it those civil servants will be perfectly independent —that they will not be consciously or unconsciously influenced by the desires of the Minister? I do not say the present Minister is going to try to influence any commission he may set up, but I do maintain that the outlook of a commission of that kind is bound to be affected by the Minister's outlook. And further than that, the Minister does retain the right, under Section 10, actually to recommend and suggest that certain people be selected, and, as far as I can gather from Section 10, when the Minister does suggest that certain persons be selected, the commission has certainly no option but to select such persons provided they have reasonable educational qualifications.

Now I suggested in this House before that the proper way to deal with local services is to have a local Civil Service, and that we should hold competitive examinations for the junior appointments, and that we should promote by seniority and merit. If such a proposition is brought forward by the Minister I will be prepared to support it, but this Bill, as it stands, does not do anything of the kind. It proposes to take from the men we have placed on the local councils the only bit of patronage they have. I do not suggest that these men want patronage for any personal results that may come from it, but when you throw personal responsibility upon men, and ask them to give time and intelligence, without remuneration, to the work of public boards you must, at least, show that you have confidence in their integrity. You appointed them to carry on the work, and now you say to them, "We do not trust you in the final selection of the men suitable to fill your official posts." I say the proper way to deal with this matter, for the present, is to hold qualifying examinations, and when these qualifying examinations are held, the men qualified should be submitted to the local board for final selection. I am confident there is no body, Civil Service Commissioners or Ministers, more capable of selecting men suitable to fill these appointments than the local bodies themselves. That being the case I cannot give my support to this Bill as it stands.

Mr. SEARS

I think Deputy Morrissey was unfair in the analogy he sought to establish between what the Government is doing with regard to its own officials, and what it proposes to do with regard to the officials of local bodies. He said that the voters who elected the local bodies are the same voters who elected the Government, and that they are equally competent to appoint their officials. But the analogy he sought to draw is not at all complete. The Government does not propose to take from voters in the County Tipperary, for instance, the right to elect the councillors of Tipperary. The Bill does not contemplate that at all. The Local Government voters of Tipperary can still elect the council the same as formerly. But the voters never elected the officials. The officials, working for the Executive Council, are all appointed after competitive examination, and what this Bill proposes to do is not to lower, in any way, the dignity of the local councils, but rather to raise their dignity. At present the officers working for the Government are selected after competitive examinations. This Bill proposes that the officers now working for local bodies shall be selected in the same way, so that the local bodies will see that, in that respect, they are being put on a level with the Executive Council.

I was surprised, listening to Deputy Doyle, to find that he was not altogether very generous to the rest of the counties in the Saorstát outside Wexford. He said that in the County Wexford they have most excellent officers and never have any fault to find with them. I agree with him in that. We had evidence from other parts of the Saorstát that officers are not altogether satisfactory.

Mr. BAXTER

From what counties?

Mr. SEARS

I named the county which has excellent officers; I will not name the other counties for obvious reasons. At all events, under this Bill Deputy Doyle would be in a position to say that he would share out these excellent officers in his county to the other counties without any trouble. That would give the excellent officers in the County Wexford an opportunity for further promotion.

Mr. CORISH

It would not be promotion to leave Wexford and go elsewhere.

Mr. M. DOYLE

Where would we send them to get promotion?

Mr. SEARS

They have passed examinations. Take, for instance, a small county with a county surveyor enjoying a salary perhaps in proportion to the area of the county. Say a vacancy occurs in Cork. He might go in for the examination and pass the examination; then why should he not be selected for the position by the Commission if he is the best man? I was greatly surprised at the argument used by Deputy Heffernan. He is in favour of a Civil Service for local officials, but he objects to a scheme that lays the foundation for that Civil Service. He says in one breath: "We do not want patronage; we want fair play." In the next breath, he says: "Why should we not give any patronage that is going to the men who are doing the work?" He cannot have it both ways. The Government, in this Bill, have crossed out the word "patronage" altogether.

Mr. BAXTER

And put in the Minister?

Mr. SEARS

It is open to you to make that charge, but you do not believe that charge. These men will be selected after competitive examination. In that way we will get the best men. Is not that a better system than the present system under which, in some counties, we do not get the best men but get "duds"?

Mr. BAXTER

What counties?

Mr. SEARS

County Cavan, for instance.

Dr. HENNESSY

The Bill we are now discussing has for its object the removal, amongst other abuses, of the abuse of nepotism. I should be no enemy of nepotism. As an official of a local authority, anything I ever got was due to nepotism. It is well to be candid. My qualifications were never considered. I was fortunate in having relatives and friends in the local body and they never failed me. That is the way with every other local authority and local official in Ireland. It has struck me that the opposition to the present Bill partakes of the nature of an unholy alliance. We have, on the one hand, the Farmers' Party and, on the other hand, we have Deputy Johnson's Party.

Mr. BAXTER

Is that an unholy alliance?

Dr. HENNESSY

Deputy Johnson, with his usual Parliamentary finesse, queers the issue, but, nevertheless, when speaking last evening, he convinced me that he was as jealous of the patronage of the local bodies as any Deputy on the Farmers' benches. True enough, he feared the nepotism of the Minister for Local Government more, and he attempted to prove that there was an opportunity for nepotism to be exercised by that Minister, relying mainly for support of that contention on Section 10, paragraphs (a) and (b), of the Bill. I have read those paragraphs. I do not profess to be a lawyer or to be capable of interpreting them properly. But I think they are, to a great extent, quite harmless and that there is a good deal to be said for them. Paragraph (a) would seem to me to make provision for the promotion of an official, while paragraph (b) deals with the case of an officer who, under the amalgamation scheme, found himself in receipt of an allowance or gratuity. We know that a lot of those men were excellent officials. I know many medical men—most capable surgeons—to have failed to get transferred because they had not friends enough on the new body.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Deputy is dealing with the wrong sub-section. He should read Section 1.

Dr. HENNESSY

I am giving my version of the section and the Minister can explain it more fully afterwards. I do not know what objection the Labour Party can really have to appointments being made by this Commission.

Mr. CORISH

The Commission does not make them.

Dr. HENNESSY

I have an excellent scheme before me, drafted by a section of the Labour Party, dealing with the medical question in Ireland. Here is what they say:

All staff to be recruited by competitive examination, with provision for occasional post-graduate refreshing and openings for promotion through a national service.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is what we want.

Dr. HENNESSY

I think when the Minister comes to reply he will show you that he is giving you all that you want. I believe that is all the Deputies on the Government benches want. As regards competitive examination, it has been said that this form of examination, especially in the case of professional men, is not the best test. I agree with that. I will tell the Dáil how they may get better men. If this Commission, in making the appointments, lets it be understood that any man who has done six months' post-graduate work in, say, surgery, six months' post-graduate work in medicine, or six months' post-graduate work in midwifery will get a preference, better men will be got. If you get a man who has done this course satisfactorily, you will get a man much better than the man you are getting now—a man with experience and a man well trained.

Mr. JOHNSON

Hear, hear.

Dr. HENNESSY

I am glad to hear Deputy Johnson say "Hear, hear," but I am rather surprised.

Mr. CORISH

Where will you get that in this Bill?

Dr. HENNESSY

Regulations framed under this Act, when it becomes an Act, will give it to you. I am certain, from my experience, that the Selection Boards will give it to you, and I believe that this Bill has for its object simply the perpetuation of the Selection Board system.

We are told that this Bill is a vote of censure on the local bodies. Deputy Heffernan's family, many of whom were distinguished medical men, owe something to competitive examination. It gave them an opportunity of becoming distinguished men in other services. But for the principle of competitive examination, they would never have had that chance. Instead of this Bill being a vote of censure on the local authorities, the object of the Minister, and the object of the Government, I think, is to remove temptations from the frailties of human nature (interruption). I may say, by way of explanation, that I do not hear interruptions. It takes me all my time to give attention to my own thoughts. With reference to the vote of censure on public boards, we need only go back to last November when the Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill was going through the Dáil and when certain exemptions were claimed in regard to the appointment of professional men. The Labour Deputies and the Farmer Deputies showed a wonderful anxiety to save the Government from their own frailties. They wanted everything done by the Civil Service Commission. Deputy Heffernan, on that occasion, made a speech which, if it were good then, I believe should be good now. I will give you a brief extract from that speech:

In my opinion, if the Dáil grants this power, it opens the door to all kinds of possible jobbery and the giving of appointments to men who have earned the right to the appointments, not because of real ability, but because of political services. I do agree with the Deputies who have already spoken, that the present Minister had no intention of that kind in his mind when introducing the Bill, but the fact remains in any case that it can be used for that purpose. It is my opinion that there are very few appointments that cannot be filled by competitive examinations. I think it should be the ideal to be aimed at, and that every possible appointment should be filled by means of competitive examination. It was the ideal put forward by Sinn Fein. It was the ideal which an attempt was made to force on the local boards through the country. I certainly am not going to give my vote for a Bill which will set an example from headquarters, so to speak, and give appointments for other reasons than real work and real ability as proved by competitive examination.

I think that holds good on the present occasion. I think it makes the case for the Government. Why should the Government have a double dose of original sin?

Mr. GOREY

I do not know.

Dr. HENNESSY

Why should they be elected to represent the people if that was so? Why should they be more iniquitous than the people elected to the county council? Still you made provision to save them from themselves. I believe—and I have a fair knowledge of the country—that you will find that every self-respecting man in the country, and many men who are on the public boards, will welcome this Bill.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Hear, hear.

Dr. HENNESSY

They have frequently told me that the most distasteful thing in their experience of public life and public administration was the canvassing that was taking place, and their having to vote for people that they would not vote for if the voting were by ballot. Let us consider for a moment the volume of opinion in favour of this Bill. The General Council of the County Councils—the bodies that preceded the present county councils—passed a unanimous resolution at different meetings advocating the filling of appointments to local bodies by a Civil Service Commission.

Mr. JOHNSON

But not by this Bill.

Dr. HENNESSY

Ought you not have as high ideals as these men? You claim to have higher ideals. Then show them to us. The medical profession shared some of the moral obloquy of the boards for nepotism, and for any corruption that may have taken place. As far back as 1911, on a plebiscite, 94 per cent. of them voted for entrance to the local government service by competitive examination. That was under the British régime. Now, we know that Arthur Griffith advocated this system for local appointments, and we know, too, that his advocacy of that very policy strengthened Sinn Fein, and attracted forces to Sinn Fein that it would never have otherwise. They saw the purity of the man's ideals and the purity of his policy. I have already quoted the opinion of Labour, and, added to this, I have already given quite a respectable body of organised opinion in favour of the present Bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

No, no.

Dr. HENNESSY

Potential candidates for county health appointments have gone to America and have gone to England, and have been away from their homes for six or eight months studying public health questions. I know that many of these men have gone abroad for these studies. I can tell you that if these men thought that the local authorities would have the making of these public health appointments, not one of them would have stirred a foot to go abroad in order to have improved their studies or to make themselves better qualified. I believe that if you adopted the so-called panel system that has been advocated here by some Deputies and if you sent down a panel to the local authorities, and put one of these men who have studied at the top place, that the twenty-sixth man, with friends and relations, as in my own case, would get elected. I am candid about the whole thing. It was only on the assurance that the Civil Service Commission for making appointments to local bodies would be created, that these men went to America and England, and are spending their time and their money there in study. I know some of these men would not, with all their qualifications, get as much as a proposer or seconder if the appointments were to be filled by the local bodies, and that the local man who never stirred from home to gain any special or extra knowledge would beat them easily.

Mr. JOHNSON

He would not be on the panel.

Mr. WILSON

How would he get on the panel?

Dr. HENNESSY

That word "panel" has been used very loosely. He might not get on the panel or get elected for that matter. If the Civil Service adopted the panel system, one of these men would be put, say, first place on the panel, but the fact of his being number one on the panel would not get him elected. Every man here who has any connection with local bodies, where blood relationship counts for so much in Ireland, knows that I am speaking the truth. We have heard a good deal that the man who pays the piper should call the tune. I hold, and it is a fact, that the salaries of the local officials in Ireland are paid out of the central funds. The grants voted here pay far more than the salaries of these men. There are places in Ireland in which, I am told, it is unnecessary, owing to these grants, to strike a poor rate at all. The poor rate goes to defray the county health board charges. These county health board charges are comprehensive charges. They mean the salaries of dispensary doctors, county home assistants, outdoor assistants, and so on. All the grants paid to local bodies pay these salaries.

Mr. DOYLE

Where do the rates go?

Dr. HENNESSY

Now, take the case of the County Wicklow. I am a ratepayer there. I am a farmer. Perhaps that accounts for my predilection for these benches. The county health board charges there, when you deduct the grants, just work out at 6d. in the £. That is the amount that falls upon the farmer. That is the modest sum when the agricultural grant in aid is deducted. Under the circumstances, what is the use of saying that the local authorities find the money to pay the officials? With the grants, they do not, and the tendency will be—I believe it is a rightful tendency—that all these public health charges, the charges of the sick and the poor, will be a national charge. They are, in fact, a national charge largely, at the moment, and I believe they must be continued as a national charge.

In the circumstances, I do not see what is wrong about these appointments being made centrally. We hear a lot about bureaucracy and centralisation. We ought to remember that we have a population of about three millions, and that for that population of three millions, between the central and local authorities we have about 150 boards. To my mind, the Dáil, and its Departments, should be able to do central government and local government. That is the way to have economy. You will not have economy otherwise. I have heard—and it was not a kind thing to say—that these men on public boards should not be deprived of the appointment of officials. I do not think that that was a carefully-thought-out argument on the part of those who used it, because the suggestion is that they went on these boards for the patronage that was to be dispensed. That was the suggestion, because there cannot be any other loss. What are they losing if they do not go on them?

Mr. WILSON

Authority.

Dr. HENNESSY

I think that the Bill is a wonderful step towards clean government. I was never prouder of being a member of the Government Party than I am this minute. I am an unpledged member of the Government Party, mind you, but every day that I see the Government at work I see that they are the one Government that go in for clean administration. They ignore the clamour of the vote——

Mr. CORISH

Is this an election platform?

Mr. MORRISSEY

Where is the other Government?

Dr. HENNESSY

We will have an alternative Government some time, perhaps. I heartily congratulate the Minister and the Government for having brought forward this measure. You are all anxious to lop off patronage from the Government. Why complain now at lopping it off from the local authorities? Is there any honesty and consistency at all to be found among politicians? I am beginning to despair.

Mr. GOREY

Having listened to Deputy Dr. Hennessy, one can only come to one conclusion, and that is that he has had rather shady experiences in his time, and I believe he has candidly admitted that. He has told us that it was not merit that got him these local appointments, but his friends who had a pull.

Dr. HENNESSY

Certainly.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

You never heard that before?

Mr. GOREY

I have heard it in South Tipperary and a few places like that.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

But never in Kilkenny?

Mr. GOREY

Never. I believe Galway is equally bad.

Dr. HENNESSY

They do not forget their friends there.

Mr. GOREY

Deputy Hennessy has made a very open confession. His experience has been very unfortunate, as far as public administration is concerned. Corruption was rampant in his appointments——

Dr. HENNESSY

I did not say "corruption."

Mr. GOREY

And the members of his family are open to that sort of thing.

Dr. HENNESSY

I did not speak of corruption at all.

Mr. GOREY

It is the very same thing.

Dr. HENNESSY

Very well, I will accept it. That will put all the onus on you of removing the nepotism.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I think Deputy Gorey should not make that allegation against Deputy Hennessy. Will Deputy Gorey please sit down? Deputy Hennessy made a very simple statement, which was quite understandable, namely, that he got an appointment, not because of his merits, but because of his relations. That is not an imputation against Deputy Hennessy.

Mr. GOREY

Oh, no, because he had the pull and used the pull, pulled for all he was worth. Now we are told about what local authorities are likely to do and what they have done in the past. A picture is being held up to us of what this Commission will be like, and we are told that they will be free from political and family influences. Probably family influences will not have as much pull there, but I am certain that political preferences will have as much pull as, or more than, on local boards. We have no doubts that these Commissioners will not be supermen; they will be men of ordinary clay and will not be better than anybody else, and we look for patronage there much more marked and much more in operation than in the case of the local bodies. Probably a commission set up by the Government will have one political colouring. I might take it at that from my experience.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

What did the Deputy mean by that last remark?

Mr. GOREY

What?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It is a plain question. What does the Deputy mean by his last remark, that he might take it at that from his experience? Let us have that.

Mr. GOREY

When two or three candidates of equal merit are put up, the candidate who is favourable to the political influences of those who make the appointment will get it.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The Deputy was speaking about the probable constitution of the board and he referred to "my experience" in that connection.

Mr. GOREY

Perhaps that was rather an unfortunate way of putting it. It might not be quite accurate, but I say that the local authorities are composed of several political elements, that all the political elements in the country are represented on the local boards. Every body with a political viewpoint sets up a party for election to the local boards on a different ticket and it is unfair to say that politics will have a pull. Why not set a standard? If you do not think the standard is sufficiently high, raise the standard. Let candidates pass examinations before a commission, or some other authority, and let local appointments be made by the local people. If you take away all the methods of what I call administration from the local authorities they will not function at all. You had better concentrate all the government of the country in Dublin and set up another branch of the Civil Service to deal with this part of it.

Mr. BURKE

This Bill has nothing to do with administration.

Mr. GOREY

It has to do with administration inasmuch as the men you are going to set up to carry out your orders are the men who will select and send down these officials, and the people who want their administration carried on and who will pay for it are the people who ought to be allowed to elect the officers to carry it out. Set any standard you like; raise the standard as high as you like; let candidates come up to that standard, and then let the local authorities make the appointments. That ought not to be impossible, and under that system we would have a great deal less patronage and a great deal less suspicion than we will have under the suggested system. I hazard the guess that you had better, when appointing this commission, also set up a school of commissioners to carry out all local administration, because from my experience—I may not be as unfortunate as some Deputies, including Deputy Dr. Hennessy—this will be considered an insult by the local authorities that I am and have been acquainted with for 20 or 30 years. I do not believe that they will function at all. I would not be surprised if they all resigned in a body. That is what I would advise in my own county.

Mr. BURKE

That is almost a slander on the local authorities.

Mr. BAXTER

From your point of view.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

Is it an insult to a Minister to be deprived of patronage?

Mr. GOREY

This is not a question of patronage at all. There are other things besides examinations and answering questions. There is something like commonsense, and is it suggested that the proposed commissioners are the people who will have a monopoly of commonsense? I think that is very clearly and very definitely suggested in the Bill. I am opposed to the Bill, and I think you will find that the majority of the county councils will be opposed to it. If you are going to do this, send down your commissioners to the country——

Mr. BAXTER

Where will they get them?

Mr. GOREY

There is enough of intelligence amongst the Government's hangers-on in the country to do that.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

That is very cheap.

Mr. GOREY

It is not a bit cheap. We know the men are going round the country promising jobs, and we know how you go on at elections on local platforms promising drainage, and things like that.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

That is very cheap. It is unworthy of the Deputy.

Mr. GOREY

It is not unworthy of the Deputy. We know how the wires are pulled. We know how your organisers go round the country. We have brought cases here from Cavan and elsewhere.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

That will do you now.

Mr. GOREY

That is the whole policy.

Mr. NOONAN

I am supporting this Bill, as I believe it will make for clean and pure administration in the public affairs of the country. Deputies have picked holes in and have found fault with the present administration. I think that ought to be sufficient reason why we should try to support the Bill. It must be admitted that canvassing for public positions under the local boards is most objectionable. Most of us know men capable of discharging public duties, who are prepared to give their services on the public boards, but who would not touch public life owing to canvassing. We know that canvassing has gone even as far as bribery for votes. These men would not touch local boards because of the manner in which they were approached by men who were looking for positions.

Mr. WILSON

Was that in Cork?

Mr. BURKE

I must say that I was rather surprised at the reception this Bill got from Deputies in the Farmers' and Labour Parties. I thought it would be an agreed measure, and that, while there might be some discussion on the Committee Stage about the various sections, the principle of the Bill would be accepted.

Mr. CORISH

You are very optimistic.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. BURKE

The voices of Labour Deputies, with the possible exception of my fellow-countyman, Deputy Morrissey, have a very different ring from the voice in the Seanad of Senator O'Farrell, who was practically responsible for this measure in embryo.

Mr. JOHNSON

We all agree with what Deputy Morrissey said.

Mr. BURKE

I think Deputy Morrissey has gone a great deal further than any of the other Deputies on the Labour benches. A measure of this kind was strongly advocated in the Seanad, and, as far as I could gather, by Deputies, when the Local Government Act was going through. I thought this Bill would have got a very favourable reception from all parties. The objection of Deputy Baxter and Deputy Corish seems to be, first, to Section 2 sub-section (c). In criticising Bills of this kind I think Deputies should give the Government and Government Departments credit for having some judgment. It is preposterous to suggest that we are bringing forward a Bill which would make it obligatory on local authorities to have all appointments, even roadmakers——

Mr. GOREY

You leave that to the local authorities.

Mr. BURKE

——typists, locum tenens for doctors, and people of that kind, made by a central body. Of course that is absurd. I would be prepared to give every possible consideration to any proposal Deputy Baxter or Deputy Corish makes that would improve sub-section (c). My whole difficulty is this: the Local Government net is a very widely cast one, and includes a great number of officials of very different kinds. Sub-section (c) is devised with the object of making it possible for me not to include a large number of officers and employees, and, at the same time, to leave machinery wide enough to include classes of individuals who may not be in existence at all at the present time, or who may be in existence, or whom it is not advisable to include just now, but whom it may be advisable to include later on. If any one can devise some other form of wording which will achieve that idea I would be quite willing to agree to it.

Mr. JOHNSON

Would the Minister help us by indicating the kind of appointments of that character which could not be included under (b)? I am anxious to know what the Minister has in mind.

Mr. BURKE

I have no one in particular in mind.

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not mind the person but the class.

Mr. BURKE

I have not even a class of person in mind. It is quite obvious that at the outset our machinery may not be working properly and we might consider it advisable later on to include classes that we do not feel justified in making a provision for at this stage. The general atmosphere surrounding the arguments in opposition to the Bill seems to be that the whole idea is to concentrate power in the hands of the Minister and to leave no power whatever to the local authorities. In fact one Deputy suggested that it was merely transferring patronage from the local authorities to the hands of the Minister for Local Government. I do not see how any Deputy who has read Section 5 could say that. That section gives local authorities absolute power as regards the promotion of suitable officials at present in their service, and power to elect suitable pensioners who had experience of similar work in the past. There is absolute power to make those appointments without any reference to the Commissioners. It is only in cases where they failed to make these appointments that the machinery of the Commissioners comes into operation at all. When the Commissioners' powers do come into operation they are restricted to the making of appointments by competitive examination. That deprives them and the Minister of any power of patronage, if they were willing to exercise such power. The only limitation on that is the limitation contained in Section 9. Deputy Heffernan and other Deputies who condemned the Bill very strenuously admitted, and in fact argued as something against the Bill, that in some cases competitive examinations do not provide the best and most suitable candidates. That is particularly true in the case of county medical officers of health which is pre-eminently a position where administrative abilities will count far more than theoretical knowledge. The next exception is that contained in Section 10. That section is merely devised with the object of protecting officials under local authorities who should in the ordinary course of events be promoted, who are the obvious people for promotion, but who, owing to the fact that they may not have a pull in a particular council, or perhaps a particular council may have a grudge against them, are not put forward for the appointment. In such a case the section is a safeguard for those particular officials so that the Minister should have power in cases of hardship to put forward their names.

Mr. JOHNSON

Is it confined to cases of hardship?

Mr. BURKE

That is the intention. In order to meet the wishes of the Dáil I am prepared to leave this to an open vote. But I hope if it is defeated there will not be any complaints lodged with me, if there are cases of hardship, where officials who should be promoted are not promoted, owing to the machinery of the Bill being defective.

Some Deputies contended that the power given in sub-section (3) of Section 6 to the Ministers should be vested in the council. As a matter of fact, I think in most cases local commissioners will recommend just one individual. I do not think there will be many cases where they will give power to the Minister to select from more than one, but in cases where they do I think it is necessary that that power should be left to the Minister, because in very many cases local authorities will probably have an objection to the appointment made. They will be in favour of some particular man amongst the candidates going for the position, and if that man is not selected pressure will be brought to bear on the council to refuse to accept the man selected by the Commission. They may refuse to make the appointment, and if they resign it is necessary that the power of making the appointment should be left to the Minister.

Mr. D'ALTON

When it is a question of equal merit between two candidates what is the position? You said there would be only one name sent forward.

Mr. BURKE

In that case, under the provisions of the Bill the Minister could decide, but those are matters which may be discussed on Committee Stage. In connection with Section 6, Deputies have asked: why not get this Commission to pick out three names, supposing you have a vacancy in a dispensary? The Civil Service Commission have taken up a position which, I think, we should acquiesce in. They will refuse to make an odious distinction between professional men. The mere fact that a man is registered on the General Medical Register qualifies him for the post, and if we were to pick out one man and say "You are qualified and the other two are not," I think it would leave us open to an action.

Mr. BAXTER

When they make the appointment do they not determine that one man is more capable than another?

Mr. BURKE

They do, but they do not determine that that man is qualified and that the others are not qualified.

Mr. BAXTER

Their action declares that.

Mr. BURKE

Deputy Johnson took up a line that I was surprised at. He said, and several other Deputies followed him, more especially those on the Farmers' benches, that they were all afraid that if the power of patronage were lost the best type of representative would refuse to go forward for those positions as representatives on local authorities. I think that is an unfair statement to make about representatives on local authorities. He contends that the only reason that they go forward is that they are anxious for the use and enjoyment of patronage, and I think if we reach that stage the sooner that dies irae, which Deputy Johnson is looking forward to with such foreboding when I am going to sweep away all local authorities with a wave of my hand, comes, and when I am to put in commissioners in their place, the better. I do not think we have reached that stage. I believe the majority of the best type of representatives will welcome this provision.

Mr. GOREY

We will see.

Mr. BURKE

There has been talk about having set up a local or municipal Civil Service. That is one of those catch-cries I do not understand and I wish Deputies would put forward some specific proposals. The idea seems to be to make a kind of entrance examination for all the classes of officials under local authorities and to promote them gradually from this particular panel. I do not think it can be done. It is a very difficult thing to promote an assistant county, surveyor to be a county medical officer of health. You would have so many different classes to divide your panel into that the thing would be impossible. There may be some possible means of getting over the difficulty, but so far as I am concerned I cannot say.

Deputy Sir James Craig quoted the words of Section 7, which decides the qualifications of officers appointed. I admit that is somewhat clumsy phraseology, but we cannot get literature, like what would come from the pen of Robert Louis Stephenson, worked into an Act of Parliament. It is in order to put the position clearly from the lawyer's point of view, rather than from that of the layman, that that language is used. The object of the section is to make it possible to limit the class who can be appointed to a particular office, according to professional qualifications and also to qualifications of various kinds. Senator O'Farrell, in his proposed amendment to the Local Government Bill in the Seanad, brought in a provision whereby an examination for a particular post should be restricted to people living in a particular area. We thought that it might, perhaps, be advisable to leave that power still in the Bill. It is rather difficult to get a phrase which would enable us to restrict qualifications for an examination, say, to a medical practitioner, a nurse, or a midwife and, at the same time, to a person who was born or who lived in a particular area.

With regard to the personnel of the Commission, that point has not been definitely decided, and I do not think that it is very material at this stage. Our intention is, if possible, to have some, if not all, of the Civil Service Commissioners act upon it. One of these Commissioners is a native speaker and is very familiar with the Irish language. That, I think, should satisfy Deputy Roddy.

Mr. JOHNSON

Would one of these be an official of the Local Government Department?

Mr. BURKE

So far, neither of these Commissioners is a member of the Local Government Department. I do not think that there is anything further for me to say on the Bill. There is nothing sinister, nothing of the trick-o'-the-loop method about it. It is open and above board, and if Deputies have any reasonable amendments to introduce I will be very pleased to consider them on the Committee Stage.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Minister deal with Section 12? Can he give any indication of the approximate number of vacancies annually in the offices under (a) and (b)—what number of vacancies per annum are there in contemplation?

Mr. BAXTER

Will the Minister also say if there is any intention in this Bill to interfere with the present salaries of existing officers, inasmuch as power is taken to regulate the remuneration paid?

Mr. CORISH

Will the Minister further say, under Section 12, if he is taking to himself the right to determine when an official, say, a town clerk or secretary to a county council, is to be superannuated, and if he is going to fix any age limit for retiring?

Mr. BURKE

It is our intention to fix an age limit. We have done so already. With regard to Deputy Johnson's point, I think that we may count on there being something less than fifty vacancies in the normal year under (a) and (b).

Mr. JOHNSON

Is there any estimate of the cost of the Commission?

Mr. BURKE

I think it will be practically negligible.

Mr. JOHNSON

Then they are all to be civil servants, so that the doctor and lawyer, of whom Deputy Roddy spoke, are to be ruled out?

Mr. BURKE

They are not ruled out under the Bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

There is an inference that they are.

Mr. BAXTER

The Minister has not replied to my question as regards remuneration. Does he mean to take power to alter the salaries payable to existing officers?

Mr. BURKE

It is possible I can do that. I can do that at present.

Mr. JOHNSON

Would the Minister be prepared to delete that section as well as Section 10?

Mr. BURKE

No, I could not do that. It is already provided for.

Mr. JOHNSON

Then why put it in the Bill?

Mr. CORISH

Do I understand the Minister to say that without this Bill he can reduce salaries?

Mr. BURKE

In certain cases.

Question put. The Dáil divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 24.

Tá.

Earnán Altún.Earnán de Blaghd.Thomas Bolger.Séamus Breathnach.Seoirse de Bhulbh.Próinsias Bulfin.Séamus de Burca.Bryan R. Cooper.Sir James Craig.Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean UíDhrisceóil.James Dwyer.Michael Egan.Patrick J. Egan.Osmond Grattan Esmonde.Thomas Hennessy.John Hennigan.Patrick Leonard.Liam Mac Cosgair.Pádraig Mac Fadáin.Eoin Mac Néill.Seoirse Mac Niocaill.Liam Mac Sioghaird.

Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.James Sproule Myles.John T. Nolan.Michael K. Noonan.Peadar O hAodha.Mícheál O hAonghusa.Seán O Bruadair.Parthalán O Conchubhair.Eoghan O Dochartaigh.Séamus O Dóláin.Peadar O Dubhghaill.Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.Eamon O Dúgáin.Aindriú O Láimhín.Séamus O Leadáin.Fionán O Loingsigh.Séamus O Murchadha.Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).Máirtín O Rodaigh.Seán O Súilleabháin.Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.Caoimhghín O hUigín.Liam Thrift.

Níl.

Pádraig Baxter.Seán Buitléir.John J. Cole.John Conlan.Louis J. D'Alton.Séamus Eabhróid.David Hall.Séamus Mac Cosgair.Tomás Mac Eoin.Risteárd Mac Fheorais.Risteárd Mac Liam.Liam Mag Aonghusa.

Patrick J. Mulvany.Tomás de Nógla.Criostóir O Broin.Tomás O Conaill.Aodh O Cúlacháin.Eamon O Dubhghaill.Mícheál O Dubhghaill.Donnchadh O Guaire.Mícheál O hIfearnáin.Domhnall O Mocháin.Domhnall O Muirgheasa.Nicholas Wall.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Sears. Níl: Deputies Baxter and Corish.

Motion declared carried.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage of this Bill?

Mr. BURKE

On Wednesday next.

Mr. BAXTER

I suggest that the Committee Stage be not taken until Friday of next week so that Deputies will have an opportunity of preparing amendments.

Mr. BURKE

Well, Thursday then.

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not know how this is going to fit in with the programme of legislation which has been submitted. I think the Minister would be well advised to see if it would be possible to delete by agreement such sections in the Bill as are objected to by a large number of Deputies, and make provision in this Bill or in some amending Bill to meet the case of urgency that Deputy Sir James Craig spoke of yesterday—the case of the appointment of county medical officers of health. I do not think any Deputy in the House would object to securing the appointment of medical officers by some outside central authority. If that is the urgency, I think the Minister could get an agreed Bill hurried through the House without much difficulty.

Mr. BURKE

The whole Bill, from my point of view, is necessary, and to a great extent it is an urgent measure. Some parts of it are more urgent than others. My difficulty is to know what part of the Bill any large section in the House objects to. In the debate that took place on the Second Reading it was difficult to find out if there was anything in the Bill that was objected to. It was something that was not in the Bill but which they read into it themselves that certain Deputies objected to.

Mr. JOHNSON

I suggest for the consideration of the House that if the Minister intends to stand by this Bill in its present form, or anything like its present form, it will be strenuously objected to in many parts of the House. That will mean delay, not only in respect to this Bill but in respect to other portions of the legislative programme.

Major COOPER

I am in favour of the Bill and have just voted for its Second Reading. Except for the urgent part of the Bill, the part dealing with the appointment of county medical officers of health, I do not see any prospect of it getting through the Dáil before the Summer Recess, because it is a contentious Bill. It is a Bill in connection with which many amendments will be prepared. We have to deal with the Estimates and four or five measures of considerable importance have also to be considered, and unless the Dáil is prepared to sit to the end of July I do not think the Minister can get this Bill through. I would urge him to bring in a Bill dealing with the question of the appointment of county medical officers of health, which would be an agreed measure and passed without debate, and to leave over the remainder of this Bill, which I am in favour of, and which I believe to be necessary and desirable, but which I do not believe to be so urgent that it ought to be rushed through the Oireachtas before the end of June. I would suggest to the Minister, in the interest of getting adequate discussion for all our measures, that he should bring in a separate measure dealing with the question of the appointment of county medical officers of health and allow the remainder of the Bill to be postponed until the autumn.

Mr. O'DOHERTY

I do not know precisely what the purpose of the opposition to this Bill is.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

We cannot discuss that now.

Mr. O'DOHERTY

I think I am entitled to say that I do not know precisely what was the reason for the opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Would the Deputy address himself to the question now before the House, whether the Committee Stage of this Bill should be taken this day week or not?

Mr. O'DOHERTY

There is no objection whatever to the Bill even from the doctrinaires on the Labour benches who have made an unholy alliance with certain other Deputies.

Mr. BURKE

The position I am in is that every part of the Bill is necessary. It is all urgent, some parts of it more urgent than others. I do not see why an exception should be made in the case of this Bill any more than in that of any other Bill. If Deputies find it necessary to stay a little longer in order to give the Bill adequate consideration I am just as willing to inconvenience myself in that respect as any other Deputy. I think it is an unfair thing to put forward this suggestion at this stage.

Mr. JOHNSON

Then there will be opposition to the proposal to sit late and to sit on Mondays and late on Fridays.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I suggest that the Committee Stage of the Bill be not taken until Monday week. If the Bill were to be taken on Thursday of next week it would leave very little time for the framing of amendments to it.

Major COOPER

I want to put it to the Minister that at a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges held this morning the President put up the proposal that the Dáil should sit on Mondays and that it should sit until 8.30 on Fridays. We, the representatives of the Opposition Parties, consented to that on the grounds of great urgency. The President in return said that no measure that was not absolutely of immediate urgency should be proceeded with. I agree with Deputy Johnson that if this measure, which is not entirely of urgency—it has one factor that is of great urgency, but the other factors could be postponed until the autumn—is going to be pressed forward, then we must oppose sitting on Mondays and sitting until 8.30 on Fridays. We agreed to the time-table put forward by the Government. If that time-table is going to be upset by the action of the Minister for Local Government, well then there will have to be opposition all along the time-table and not only on this particular measure. There has been a great desire to co-operate with the Government in getting the adjournment at the end of the month of June, but if suggestions put forward by the Government are not going to be acted on, then we on our side are released from any adumbrations that have been made.

Mr. BURKE

May I ask the Deputy a question? Was not this Bill before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges when they were considering this matter, and did they not know that it had got a First Reading and was before the Dáil? Why should they assume then that I would be willing to agree to the mutilation of this Bill any more than any other Minister would in regard to a Bill of his?

Major COOPER

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges obviously cannot find any Deputy who is not represented on it, but it is definitely stated in the Standing Orders that the business of the Dáil shall be arranged by the President of the Executive Council in conjunction with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Therefore, when they arrive at an agreement if any individual Deputy, whether it be the Minister or otherwise, refuses to abide by the agreement then any member of the Committee is released from any agreement made.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Are we to take it that these adumbrations of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges were arrived at on the basis of assuming that the Minister for Local Government would be prepared to jettison three-fourths of his Bill?

Major COOPER

I agree.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It is not a question of agreeing. I am asking the Deputy is that so or not?

Major COOPER

It was agreed on the basis put forward by the President and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Executive Council. It was believed that might happen, and as it has not happened then, in my opinion, Deputy Wilson, Deputy Johnson, Deputy Thrift and myself are not bound by the undertaking arrived at then. If individual Deputies or Ministers refuse to abide by the agreement then every party is released. That is what I want to emphasise.

The PRESIDENT

Deputy Cooper will remember that I stated an extern Minister asked for time for a measure, that it was given, and that the word of the Executive Council had passed in that connection. If the Minister considered that his measure was a necessity the Government was bound by its original promise and undertaking.

Professor THRIFT

As my name has been mentioned I would like to state that my recollection of what occurred is that certain suggestions as to a programme were put forward by the President, and in reply it was pointed out that this Bill did not appear to be as urgent as others, and that it might be possible to sub-divide the Bill into two parts, bringing in one part with reference to the county medical officers and postponing the other part. But I do not recall that there was anything like an undertaking or promise of any kind on the part of the President as to what would be done when the other suggestions were agreed to on our part.

Major COOPER

I agree with all the President has said. Only I want to make it clear there should be no charge of bad faith on the part of any nonmember of the Government Party on that Committee. If it is found impossible to carry out the programme suggested by the President, then we have a free hand and are not bound, but provisionally we accepted the programme put forward by the President. If now it is impossible to fulfil that programme, at any rate it releases everybody. I am not charging bad faith against the President, but equally I am anxious that we should not be charged with bad faith.

Mr. SEARS

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges arrived at an agreement to-day as to the programme for the remainder of the session, and that agreement was on the lines described by Deputy Cooper. The President told us he could make no promise with regard to this Bill, but it was the opinion of the Committee that the Minister should be asked to drop a portion of the Bill until the autumn session, and that the more urgent portion of the Bill might be proceeded with. The Committee arrived at that conclusion after having gone into all the Bills and Estimates, and they drafted a time-table. They agreed it was absolutely impossible to adhere to that time-table if this Bill was proceeded with fully. I also would appeal to the Minister to drop portion of the Bill until the autumn session, and to proceed now only with the portion dealing with medical officers, as a matter of urgency, and that is all he can get through. Deputies representing all parties in the House agreed with the programme, and I think it should be adhered to.

Mr. BAXTER

I would suggest that if this matter were adjourned until to-morrow the Minister would have an opportunity to consider the position. All parties, I understand, have agreed to the time-table—one with which I am not satisfied—conditional on the Minister for Local Government adopting a certain policy regarding this Bill. I think the Minister should take some time to consider the question that has been raised.

Mr. O'DOHERTY

I think this is a most stupid arrangement.

Mr. BURKE

I do not want to be put in the position of being the stubborn member of the Dáil, keeping everybody here after they decided on getting away, but I must say that I think it was a rather high-handed act on the part of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to attempt to carve up this particular Bill in a way that had never been done before, without giving me any notice whatever of it, especially considering that the Bill was before the Dáil. If it had not gone through the First Reading it would be a different matter.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair.

Mr. BURKE

I consider that I am being treated very unfairly in this matter. However, in order to meet the views of the Deputy in the matter, I am willing to give way. The Second Reading of the Bill having been passed the whole principle of the Bill is agreed to. I will just go ahead with the machinery of the Bill that enables the county medical officers of health to be appointed, without prejudice to what is going to happen in the autumn, but I must say that I do it under protest.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It is only right to say that the Committee on Procedure did not really take any steps about this particular Bill. The Committee on Procedure considered, generally, the work that has to be done before the summer adjournment. The question of this particular Bill arose. The President made it quite clear that he could not, seeing that the Bill was a Bill introduced by an extern Minister, give any promise about it, but that he did understand, and the Committee, generally, was given to understand, that there was one particular thing in the Bill that was very urgent. I do not think it right to say that there was any proposal made by the Committee that the Bill should be carved up. I very much doubt that it is possible to do what is actually suggested; that is read this particular Bill a Second Time, and then, in Committee, do the exact thing that is suggested now. The understanding of the Committee was that the particular thing but that the rest, although urgent, was regarding, I think, these county medical officers of health was urgent, not so urgent that it could not wait until the autumn.

Before we continue this matter, the suggestion that the Minister should have an opportunity of thinking it over is the best suggestion that has been made, that instead of fixing the Committee Stage of this Bill now we should postpone the fixing of it until to-morrow, so that the Minister might not be charged with having made some promise that possibly he may not be able to carry out. But the Committee on Procedure did not take on itself any power, or make any suggestion with regard to the Bill before the Dáil.

The PRESIDENT

I certainly did not understand that if that agreement or, at least, the representations that were made to the Committee on Procedure, were not acceded to by the Minister for Local Government, it would upset the whole arrangement. As nobody asked whether or not I saw the Minister in the meantime I would like to say that I did spend a very considerable time with the Minister informing him of the circumstances of the proceedings that took place before the Committee on Procedure and of the request that was there made.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I do not think the programme was contingent upon something particular happening about this Bill, although the adoption of the programme, with general goodwill, might be made more difficult if something did not happen about this Bill. It is not right to say that the programme absolutely depended on the Minister doing something about the Bill.

Mr. WILSON

That is quite right. My opinion is that this matter was mentioned. We agreed, consequently, on a programme that, with the goodwill of everybody, we could carry out.

Mr. BAXTER

Perhaps if this matter were adjourned until to-morrow and the Whips of the different parties got together it might be possible to make some more satisfactory arrangement than at the moment.

Mr. BURKE

I will make a statement to-morrow.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We will leave over the question of fixing the Committee Stage until to-morrow.

Ordered accordingly.

Sitting suspended at 6.15 p.m. and resumed at 7.5 p.m.,AN LEASCHEANN COMHAIRLE in the Chair.