I move: That the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Bill, 1928, be read a Second Time. The Act that this Bill is intended to amend is the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, No. 39. That Act provided in the main for the setting up of a Local Appointments Commission and, generally, made provision with respect to appointments by local authorities. We propose to amend that in a number of respects, the chief one being that where the Act provides for sending down the name of one person, it shall be discretionary for local bodies to ask that instead of a single name being sent down to them for an appointment, a panel of names shall be sent to them. The difference in effect would be this, that the local bodies whose officers the appointees will become will have a choice before them when making the appointment. As every Deputy knows, there has been a good deal of discontent with the manner in which appointments have been made up to the present. The local bodies have felt that this particular Act gives the Commission power to send them down a certain person and that they have no choice whatever, the result of which is that they have become purely ratifying bodies; in fact they have not that power. They have hardly the power to refuse, so that their functions in the appointment of their own employees are practically nil.
Now, I take it the reason why the original Act was passed was because there had been a certain amount of dissatisfaction in the country with the way in which appointments were made when the full power of appointment remained with the local bodies. But I think the Act went to the other extreme, and now we have a great deal of dissatisfaction with the Local Appointments Commission. The talk about corruption which formerly was fairly frequent with respect to the local bodies is now turned on to the Local Appointments Commission. I am not going to go into details as to whether there is any justification for that or not. Other Deputies will be speaking and will probably refer to certain appointments. As far as I am concerned, I am dealing with this thing on general lines. I think there will be far greater confidence if we use the existing Civil Service Commission as the machinery by which candidates for appointment will, so to speak, be examined. Take the position of an ordinary local body and confine yourself for the moment to technical and professional appointments; a certain professional or technical appointment has to be made. Members of the Board will not regard themselves as competent generally to judge of the professional or technical qualifications of the candidates. They would like to set up some technical or professional examining body to report to them on the qualifications. I am assuming that you have a local body anxious to be perfectly fair. To get the best possible servants it would be well, I think, to have a certain amount of uniformity in the method by which qualifications would be examined. Whilst we are anxious to give to the local bodies the fullest possible power consistent with certain safeguards, we think that it would be well to have the qualifications of all applicants examined by some central body that would act for the country as a whole. So the effect of getting this work done through the Civil Service Commission would be really to establish a central examining body for all local appointments instead of having each local body setting up technical and other sub-committees or professional committees to examine into the qualifications in each case. What damage can be done? I believe it will restore confidence. I am asking myself, and generally the Deputies here, what possible damage can be done if you send down to the local bodies if they ask for it a panel of candidates, those who have been examined with regard to their qualifications and whose qualifications have been found satisfactory by a central body like the Civil Service Commission. You may say to me: "Why change from the Local Appointments Commission to the Civil Service Commission?" The reason I do it is because I believe ultimately there will be a moving forward towards having generally a national service as far as local appointments are concerned, and I think it would be a step in the right direction. I think it would lead probably to greater confidence and also to possible economy by having it all done by the Civil Service Commission. We think on those grounds there is no point whatever in having a special local appointments commission. The Civil Service Commission can act for the local bodies just as well as they are supposed to act at present for the central authority. You will mark, therefore, that the main change, at least as far as Section 7 is concerned, is that we are making it optional for the local bodies to ask for a single person if they want to. If they wish to rid themselves of any question of having to select themselves, if they do not want to exercise the power of selection, then they can ask for one, but if they do not wish to hand on that power to the Civil Service Commission then they can ask for a panel of persons. If they ask for a panel of persons then there must be sent down to them a panel of not less than three. If the Civil Service Commission are prepared to submit a larger number of names then that is all right, but they must, at any rate, send down three unless there have been fewer than three qualified applicants and if fewer than three applicants who are qualified come along they send down the total number of those who are qualified.
The two things aimed at so far are, first of all, transferring to the Civil Service Commission the powers at present vested in the Local Appointments Commission and, secondly, this giving to a local body the option of asking for one or a panel. From that point you see that any charges or suggestions of corruption or favouritism or anything of that kind will be got rid of, at least very largely, because the local people can only exercise a choice amongst perfectly qualified condidates, the best the Civil Service Commission have been able to find from amongst the applicants. As far as the central body is concerned, it is pretty clear that they cannot be using that power to put in any particular individual. At least the possibility of favouritism from the centre is limited to the extent that they have sent down three applicants and cannot at least send down the particular one for whom they want the appointment. Before I pass away from the suggestions of corruption and all the rest, there is a broad feeling that in the past, if there were anything of the kind in local bodies everyone knew about it. It was so well known that it became the talk of the countryside, and to that extent there would be a check upon it. For instance, if a doctor was not really a suitable officer they knew perfectly well if the local bodies selected such that the poor people in the neighbourhood would have to suffer and there was a responsibility on the local body therefore. They were known locally and that responsibility was perfectly clear to them and the people who elected them knowing that they would have responsibilities of that particular kind to discharge so that I say the difference in the whole case people feel is this: formerly corruption was nearly almost always revealed. There was a check, therefore, by publicity on it. But they feel at present, if there is favouritism of that particular kind at the centre, there is no check of any kind upon it; and it can be done in a much more wholesale way when all is said and done. There is just as likely to be pressure of a wrong kind brought upon a central body of that particular kind if the complete power of making appointments is in their hands. You are distributing the making of the appointment by sending down three candidates and you are, therefore, to that extent, you cannot do it absolutely, doing away with any basis for charges or suggestions of corruption. I think it is very important that there should be public confidence that appointments of this kind are made in the interests of the community as a whole and not to give jobs to friends or anything of that particular kind.
I will pass on to another feature of the Bill. Section 5 of the existing Act gives authority, in certain cases, to the local bodies to make appointments. It would be, perhaps, as well to read the section as a whole, so that we may thoroughly understand the effect of the amendments. The section is as follows:—
"(1) An appointment of a person to fill an office to which this Act applies may, subject to the sanction of the Minister——"
We have heard some discussion as to whether that means prior sanction or subsequent sanction.
"——be made by a local authority without requesting or obtaining a recommendation from the Commissioners under the subsequent provisions of this Act if, but only if, the appointment is made within three months after such office became vacant, or (in the case of an appointment to a new office) was created, and the person so appointed is a person who at the time when such office became vacant or was created (as the case may be) either (a) held a pensionable office under the said or any other local authority, or any two or more local authorities, the duties of which related to matters the same as or similar to the matters to which the duties of the vacant office relate; or (b) was in receipt of an allowance from the said or any other local authority, or any two or more local authorities, in respect of his having ceased to hold an office under the said or any other local authority, or any two or more local authorities, the duties of which related to matters the same as or similar to the matters to which the duties of the vacant office relate..."
We propose to insert an addition to that section. We propose that
"Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Principal Act shall be construed and have effect as if the following words were inserted after paragraph (b) thereof, that is to say:—
Provided that in the case of a vacancy for an executive office under a local authority the person appointed to such vacant office is a person who held a pensionable office for not less than five years on the clerical staff of the said or any local authority or any two or more local authorities and that such person shall have passed a qualifying examination conducted according to regulations made by the Commissioners; and
Provided also that in the case of a vacancy for a professional or technical office the local authority shall have power to appoint or promote an officer holding a similar pensionable office under the said or any local authority or any two or more local authorities subject in all cases to the ratification by the Minister of such appointment."
The Act as it stands allows local authorities to make appointments within a certain period and to select and appoint those who hold a pensionable office in their own or a similar local authority or those who were in receipt of an allowance from a local authority. Our addition provides that the person shall have held office for not less than five years on the clerical staff and shall have passed a qualifying examination according to the regulations to be made by the Commissioners. As regards technical officers, it is provided that they shall be eligible if they have held a similar pensionable office under the said local authority. The effect of that is to give powers of promotion and transfer and to give them under definite conditions, the persons affected having passed a certain qualifying examination. It envisages the setting up of examinations for important offices and that those who have five years' service shall, on passing the examination, be eligible for appointment.
The offices to which I refer are the chief executive offices—that is to say, the office of secretary to a county council, the office of secretary to a board of health, the office of accountant to a county council, the office of secretary to a county committee of technical instruction, the office of secretary to a county committee of agriculture, the office of chief clerk to a county council and the offices of clerks to borough and urban councils. We think it is only right that there should be an opportunity of promotion for existing clerical officers and that they should be enabled to qualify for such promotion by passing an examination after five years' service. When a member of the clerical staff has five years' service and passes an examination to be held by the Civil Service Commission, he will be eligible for a local appointment. Similarly with technical and professional offices. In the case of technical and professional appointments, they could promote an officer who held a similar pensionable office under the said local authority. The effect of that is to offer a career in a sense to the officers of local bodies. You give the local bodies an opportunity of selecting from those who are qualified. The qualifying examination is to be held by the Civil Service Commissioners. The Commissioners, by this Bill, would be given power to make regulations of various kinds, either with respect to particular appointments or with respect to a class of appointments. These particular regulations would be published and brought to the notice of the Oireachtas by laying them on the Table in the same way as regulations made by the Civil Service Commissioners at the present time.
There is the further point that in the case of examination for technical and professional appointments local connection and local experience should be a particular consideration. I think that most people will agree that that is fair. You have a certain amount of local patriotism and it is not a bad thing at all. Local rates are burdened sometimes with scholarships to provide for the education of some brilliant children of the community and in the case of a person who is brought up in a certain community, who has lived amongst them, and is as able as an outsider— things being equal otherwise—there is no reason why that should not be taken into account and a special preference given to such a person.
