Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Jun 1928

Vol. 24 No. 1

PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - LOCAL AUTHORITIES (OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES) BILL.—SECOND STAGE.

Motion made and question again proposed—"That this Bill be now read a Second time."

The PRESIDENT

I explained on the last day the purpose of this Bill was to effect three main changes in the Act of 1926 which set up the Local Appointments Commission. The first was to transfer to the Civil Service Commission the duties that now devolve on the Local Appointments Commission, calling the Civil Service Commission the Local Appointments Commission.

The second was tó give local authorities a discretion, which up to this has been vested in the Local Appointments Commission—that at the request of the local authority a panel of not less than three names be submitted. The third was an alteration in the methods of selection. I went on to discuss the personnel of the present Civil Service Commission. It was explained by the Minister for Finance on the introduction of this Bill in 1926 that one of the three members of the Civil Service Commission was unwilling to take on the work of the Commissioner of the Local Appointments Commission for reasons best known to himself. I explained on the last day that to my mind it was rather an unreasonable suggestion that, in addition to other responsibilities and duties that he discharges, he should be asked to take on this particular work. However, even though it were unreasonable to ask him, the Executive Council was quite willing to ask and to press that particular member to take on this work and, as they have been unsuccessful so far, I might invite the Deputy who moved this Bill to see what effect his powers of persuasion would have in this connection. It comes to this, namely, that if this Bill were to pass and if that member persists, as I believe he would, in objecting to take on the responsibility of the duties of a Local Appointments Commissioner we would be faced with finding the personnel for a new Civil Service Commission or, at least, finding one other person who would undertake the responsibilities of that office. The other member of the Local Appointments Commission could not undertake that duty. The time which he devotes to the work of the Local Appointments Commission is at present as much as can be afforded, perhaps, more than can be afforded out of the time allotted for other duties.

We would then be faced with the position under the amending Bill now before us of having two Commissions upset, and, I presume, having to look outside for another Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. At the moment, neither of these bodies costs the State anything in respect of personnel. Two civil servants with the Ceann Comhairle act on the Civil Service Commission. Three civil servants act on the Local Appointments Commission. That work is done in addition to their other duties in the Civil Service. I take it that that point is quite clear, because we are invited to upset two Commissions. Going through the statement of the Deputy who moved the Bill, it would appear as if it were the simplest matter in the world to change the administration so that the Civil Service Commission would discharge the duties now discharged by the Local Appointments Commission. The second point, however is the material one in this measure. The Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, was introduced for one main purpose and that was to secure in the appointment of officials of local authorities the very best qualified persons for each post vacant. Stripped of all its language and verbiage, that was the main consideration. The main consideration in this Bill is to secure that some person, other than the best qualified, will be appointed. Local authorities are being invited, if this Bill becomes law, to ask for a panel of persons, not less than three. Obviously, if you have others in competition with the best qualified candidate, all the canvassing, all the local influence, about which so much was said on the introduction of that measure two years ago, will be resurrected and, obviously, the best qualified candidates, when they have to run the gauntlet of the Selection Board, or an examination plus influence with the local authority, will not be attracted in coming forward for examination in such case.

What is the purpose of sending down more than one name except to invite the local authority to appoint someone other than the best? That is the purpose of this measure, to secure that the best qualified person will not be appointed in future. The Deputy may smile, but that is its meaning, stripped of all the language which he used during the last few days, and this measure to restore public confidence will be really a measure to invite local authorities to appoint others than the best qualified. The standard of candidates appointed under the 1926 Act has been high and the general result has been good. After all, the Central Government have a right to some voice in connection with these appointments. The distribution from the Central Fund last year to local authorities was about £3,000,000. What do we ask in return? What do you deprive local authorities of in this connection? Simply patronage, and preventing the appointment of persons not best qualified. That is a matter that is affecting public confidence, and the method of restoring it, according to the mover of this Bill, is to enable local authorities to appoint persons other than the best qualified.

What about the poor man's son? What about the rights of democracy if there be not some premium for talent and capacity to fill these offices? The Deputy has not explained how the poor man's son will secure by merit alone appointments under this Bill if it be passed. What will the confidence be of those best qualified in applying for those positions? It would simply be waste of time on their part unless they have a local pull. Amendments to the same effect were moved here in the Dáil and got very little support when the Bill was introduced in 1926. Amendments to effect the same purpose, to provide a panel of candidates, were moved in the Seanad, and the Minister stated that he would prefer to withdraw the Bill than to have amendments of that character placed in the Act. There is a discretion at present in the Commissioners as to the sending down of more than one name. That discretion has been exercised on one or two occasions, and on one occasion the candidates' marks in the examination were given. In one case the Commissioners were roundly denounced for placing the responsibility of selecting one of two names on the local authority. They were asked to select the best candidate, and the Commissioners were criticised in respect of that.

The Commissioners, early in the sphere of their administration of this Act, had to make up their minds as to whether they would send down more than one name, and the first consideration which presented itself to their minds was the necessity of sending down the name of the best qualified candidate. Secondly, if the Commissioners presented more than one name, where were they going to stop? I noticed that the Deputy, in moving the Bill, referred many times to qualifications. He said "a person qualified." I think he mentioned that at least on two occasions in the course of his speech. Secondly, he mentioned "perfectly qualified"; and, thirdly, I think he mentioned a person "over whose qualifications the Civil Service Commissioners would stand." The Commissioners were satisfied that if more than one name were to be sent down, their first consideration—the best qualified candidate—would go by the board. Their second objection was, where was the line to be drawn; and the third was that mentioned already —that if more than one name were sent down, the attraction for the best qualified person for the position would not be as keen as it had been up to then. If there is one thing that has been achieved in appointments made under the Local Appointments Commission it is that the standard of the applicants for the various posts has been good. With that degree of public confidence which the Deputy affects not to see, not to hear, and not to know, there has come a marked improvement in the standard of candidates for the various positions.

I do not propose to say more in connection with the third main consideration; that is, to restrict the discretion of the Commissioners in the matter of the selection of the best qualified candidate for appointment, and put it in the hands of the local authority. I will just mention one particular case. We will suppose that a vacancy occurs for a dispensary doctor, and that it is within the competence of the local authority to ask for a written competitive examination. I need not say that the time of the Minister and the time of the local authority would be wasted to a very considerable extent in pointing out that that would not be a suitable method for selecting the best person for appointment as dispensary doctor. As regards the minor points in the Bill, Section 3 is unnecessary, as all those posts have been brought by order under Section 2 (c) of the Act of 1926, with one exception. That will be brought under the Act when the occasion arises for the making of an appointment under the Act. That is the case of the appointment of a chief clerk to a County Council. As I have said before, Section 4 of the principal Act, which this Bill proposes to repeal, must go out if we are to have a staff for doing the work of the Local Appointments Commission. As I stated in the course of the Deputy's speech, a preference is given to candidates with local knowledge and experience, but not to such an extent as to allow for the appointment a person whose qualifications would be seriously under the standard of those of a person not having local knowledge or experience. The passage of this Bill would, to all intents and purposes, throw a certain veil of respectability over the old method of appointment. It is a retrograde step. It is an unnecessary, useless and bad Bill, and I recommend the House to reject it.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

I am of opinion that all appointments, whether under the central government or under the local authorities, and the method of making these appointments, are matters that ought to be above Party. The method of making them should be such as to inspire general confidence amongst all sections of the people. This Bill, apart from its substance, is a bad Bill from the point of view that it is about the worst example I have seen, since I came in here, of legislation by reference. It is objectionable from the ordinary layman's point of view. He wants to be in a position to take up an Act of Parliament and to know, in a general way in any case, what the law is. But the main consideration which caused me to put down the amendment in my name is this: I agree with Deputy de Valera that there should be general confidence in the method of making appointments and in whatever methods or provisions we have for making appointments to these local authorities. I am not at all in agreement with him when he says that this Bill will give that general confidence. I do not think there is much in the Bill, in the first place, and I do not think it goes to meet the objections which have been made such as I know them.

With regard to the proposal to substitute the Civil Service Commissioners for the Local Appointments Commissioners. I do not think there is anything really in that either. The other is the main consideration, that is, the question of the panel, and I think sound objections can be made to that even from points of view different from those mentioned by the President. I do not think, for instance, that a man would apply for a position and run the risk of being placed No. 3 on the panel and have the fact published far and wide that there were at least two other men who were better than he. He might find himself applying for another position and find himself No. 3 again. I think that would be open to objection from the point of view of the applicant. I do not agree with the President that the position at the moment is such that it is not open to criticism of any kind. There have been complaints, and the President knows that there have been complaints, from local authorities and other people, and I would venture to say from the point of view of the Local Appointments Commissioners and the Minister for Local Government himself, that there might be something in the present Act that they would like to have remedied.

I believe this is a matter on which there ought to be general agreement among all Parties. Therefore, I do not like the idea of a Bill being introduced by one Party and being opposed by another Party who think that their own particular Act is perfect in all its forms. What I would like to see is general agreement, and that is the one thing that will restore confidence in the administration of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act. If there is general agreement among all Parties in this House with regard to the provisions such an Act should contain, and if any flaws which may be discovered in the Act are amended by general agreement it would be more satisfactory. I, therefore, have suggested that instead of voting for the Second Reading of this Bill that the Bill be deferred and that a committee be set up, as I have suggested in another motion set down here in my name, which is really part of the amendment—that a committee be set up to examine and inquire into the Act.

We have on all sides of the House men who are in very close touch with local authorities, members of local authorities, those who understand the work of local authorities and who know the complaints that have been made from time to time with regard to the operations of this Act. I suggest that a committee mainly composed of men in touch with local government in the country should be set up to examine into the working of the Act. I want to make it quite clear that I do not mean that this committee should go into particular appointments that have been made under the Act. I want to make that quite clear. I do not propose that the particular appointments that were made, or the methods used by the Local Appointments Commission of finding out who would be the best candidate for any particular appointment would be inquired into in any particular way. What I do wish would be to get a committee together which would find out what the general complaints are with regard to the working of this Act generally, and what defects have been shown in its working and in its operations. I believe that the Local Appointments Commissioners themselves would be able to give a good deal of information with regard to the defects which may have been found in the measure. I believe that a body like the General Council of County Councils could give valuable information to the Committee, and possibly the Association of Local Officers and the Association of Municipal Employees could also give information that would be useful.

If general agreement could be come to by a committee of that kind, it might be found, for instance, on investigation that there were really no material complaints at all, or defects in the original Act, or the committee might agree on a measure based on the evidence that would be put before them. But I think the Committee would be likely to find that there were some defects at least that showed themselves in its working during the past two years, and in that case if an agreed measure were introduced into this House, a measure giving effect to the findings of a committee of this kind, I believe that would go far to restore public confidence.

We know the nature of the complaints, the usual kind of complaint in which there is no real substance. This arises largely from the fact that, as they say down the country, anything that is done in Dublin cannot be right especially if it is done by one particular Party. I am afraid that there is a feeling in the country, fostered, to some extent, as I have said before, by the particular Party which happens to be in power at the time, that only one Party can ever do what is right. Now, that feeling is held largely by people who are not supporters of the present Government Party. I think sufficient thought is not given to the fact that there is at least a possibility that sooner or later some other Party may come into power. I would urge the House and I would urge the proposer of this Bill on the one side and the Government Party on the other side to consider these points that I am making—that it is necessary for the sake of good local government in the country that there should be the utmost confidence amongst all sections of the people in the method of making appointments to the local bodies. There is not that confidence at the present time that one would wish. I think that confidence can be got by having something in the nature of an agreed Bill. I do not like this present Bill and I think that in some respects, while purporting to give greater powers to the local authorities, it ties their hands more than they are tied at present. I could not see my way to vote for this Bill but I do believe that it will be to the advantage of all concerned if a Committee of this House, Deputies who are in close touch with local government, should be set up and go into this Act and inquire if there are any defects in the present measure as shown by its working during the past few years. This matter ought be the subject of a measure which would be passed by general agreement in the House. I have no doubt if that were done it would achieve what the proposer of the Bill says is his main object, namely to restore public confidence in the working of this Act at the present time.

Mr. BLYTHE

I am very largely in agreement with what Deputy O'Connell has said but I could not, for one or two reasons, support his amendment as it stands. First, I think, that while it is a good thing to set up a Committee to examine the working of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, the motion which would do that ought to be somewhat differently worded, because as the amendment stands, if it became a substantive motion and were passed, the Committee would have power to send for all the papers of the Local Appointments Commissioners. There are some of these files which are confidential and which I think ought not to be examined by a Committee of the House, because it would damage the future working of that particular body. For instance, there are on the files comments by the Commissioners on the people suggested to serve on Selection Boards and some of these comments might be very frank and unpleasant to the people concerned and it would be undesirable that publicity should be given to them. Further, people who have acted on Selection Boards have been given an assurance that their reports would be treated confidentially. They were given a guarantee in the following terms:—"All communications and information which the members of the Board receive as such are to be regarded as strictly confidential and the Commissioners will so regard any reports or information which a board forwards to them."

People have acted on Selection Boards and have been able to put down their views quite freely and candidly in the belief that they would not be given publicity, and there should not be publicity given to them. There are reports on the characters of the applicants and I do not think that it would be reasonable or fair that these reports should obtain publicity. It would be possible to have a Committee with slightly different terms of reference which would inquire into the whole business, which would examine the Commissioners, examine them as to the procedure and which could have before them the officials of the Appointments Commissioners and which would have, if they were willing to come, as I am sure many of them would be willing to come, outsiders who have acted on the Selection Boards. It would be possible to alter this amendment so as to get the inquiry which I believe would be extremely useful and which would tend, because of the publicity that would follow, to increase confidence in the working of the Commission. It would give an opportunity for any amendments to be brought forward which might be necessary and it would give information to the members of the Dáil that I think would satisfy them. There might be small points in the Act which the Committee might wish to change but I think it would satisfy them as to the general working of the Act. If this particular matter which is now on the Paper were out of the way the Government would be prepared to bring forward a motion for the setting up of a commission which would inquire into the working of the Act and into the working of the Commission set up under the Act. I am opposed to Deputy O'Connell's amendment simply for one reason —it keeps in a state of animation what I regard as a preposterously stupid Bill and I think that Deputy de Valera's Bill should be given the fate that it deserves and thereafter we could take up such a motion as Deputy O'Connell has put down. There might be some slight alterations. It seems to me that the Bill proposed by Deputy de Valera is about as bad a Bill as it would be possible to have. It seems to me that there is only one respect in which the scheme of things that it proposes would be better than the arrangement that existed prior to the passing of the Act of 1926. I will state the one respect in which I think it would be better. Prior to the passing of that Act the local authorities had, most of them pious resolutions in their books that preference should be given to all candidates who had a knowledge of Irish but when the appointments came to be made no preference was ever given.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. BLYTHE

It would be possible, by the machinery which Deputy de Valera proposes to set up, to secure that the actual preference would be given, but in every other respect we would have these defects of the old arrangements. As the President has said, it is left to the local authority to say if there should be some method of selection other than written competitive examination, because, I take it, competitive examination means a written or mainly written examination. It is left to the local authority to decide whether or not some method of selection other than competitive examination is to be resorted to. If some local authority, for any reason whatever, decided not to make representations to the Commissioners, and a dispensary doctor had to be appointed, or, perhaps, a surgeon in a county infirmary, there would be no means whatever of appointing him except by means of competitive examination. I think I am perfectly right in that, because Section 10 provides:

Whenever a local authority or the Minister requests the Commissioners to recommend to them the names of a person or persons qualified for appointment to an office to which this Act applies and the local authority in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Minister is of opinion that having regard to the knowledge and experience necessary for the efficient performance of the duties and qualifications prescribed under this Act for that office, the person or persons to be recommended as qualified for appointment to that office cannot be satisfactorily selected by competitive examination the Commissioners with the sanction of the Minister may dispense with the competitive examination required by this Act....

That is the only power that would remain in the Bill for dispensing with competitive examinations. It is provided that there is to be no choice; the local authority is to have no choice if there is to be competitive examination. I do not see why there is to be no choice in the case of competitive examination while there must be choice by the local authority in the case of competitive selection. If selection could be made improperly, competitive examination could be carried out improperly, and it would be just as easy to carry out a competitive examination improperly as to carry out competitive selection improperly.

I will leave that aside, and I think everybody will agree that for the technical posts and, in fact, for the posts where experience and something more than the qualifications that one wants for a junior entrant are required, that there is no method of choosing the candidates other than by means of a selection board. One of the results of the present system whereby one name is selected and the best qualified person is sent down to be appointed by the local authority, is that there have been great numbers of candidates coming forward. In the case of dispensaries where there are two vacancies we have had something like fifty candidates, and a larger number of candidates have come forward for all the important posts, posts of value. That shows that as far as the professional people are concerned they have confidence in the method, and we have been able to secure all sorts of leading professional men to act without any remuneration and in the public interest on the selection boards.

If we allow three names to go down to the local authority, the position is immediately changed radically for the worse. In the first place, the number of candidates would fall off. People who are good and who are willing to take those posts and are desirous of having them, if they are to get them on their merits, would decline to enter if they had to go through the ordeal of canvassing the members of local bodies after having been recommended by the Appointments Commissioners. In that case substantial numbers of the very best candidates who have gone forward would decline to compete for the vacant posts, and that would reduce the number of candidates. Then, again, people who would not have any money to spend, and who would not have pull or influence, and who could not get other people to canvass for them, would refuse to go forward; and there again the number of candidates would be reduced. Then there would be no certainty, but the very opposite, that the best candidate, even amongst the reduced number going forward, would be appointed.

It is admitted that the local authorities would have no means of judging the respective merits of the various candidates. It would be simply a matter of election, a matter of pull and influence. That is no reflection on the local authorities. It could not be otherwise, especially in view of the habits and the system which existed before this Act was set up. If this Act had been in operation for fifty years, and you had nobody accustomed to the canvassing methods in operation, you might get members of local bodies asking professional men for advice in trying to come to some decision on the merits. But in present circumstances nothing else could happen than that perhaps, the candidate who could spend most money and secure the support of the most influential men on the local body would be appointed. When that would have happened for some considerable time, you would have a very unsatisfactory result compared with present circumstances.

I have been informed, and I believe it is true, that medical men who have some experience and who contemplate going forward for local vacancies have been taking out post-graduate courses and doing everything towards improving their qualifications, in the knowledge and belief that they would improve their chances of appointment. This Bill would stop all that work that has been going on; all that work would be brought to an end. Leading members of the various professions would not be willing to give their time on selection boards if the third-rate man was as likely to be appointed as the first-rate man, and if the number of candidates coming forward was restricted by lack of confidence. More important still, lack of confidence in the system of the selection boards would render it more difficult to constitute those boards satisfactorily. Considerable expense would have to be incurred with them, and perhaps doubtful results would follow.

As far as I can make out, the idea that Deputy de Valera has in connection with this Bill is that responsibility must be spread, that you must have the Commissioners reducing the number of candidates who may be appointed to three or so, so that you get somebody above the average standard and that some one of those entering must be appointed, and that then, lest the Commissioners should be tempted to put their own candidate who is no good at all at the top of the list, you have three names sent down, and you allow the local authority to correct the errors and undo the misdeeds of the Local Appointments Commissioners by allowing them to select from three. As a matter of fact, there is inherent in the present arrangement a check of that kind, because the Local Appointments Commissioners do not themselves make the selection. In all cases they are assisted by a well-qualified Selection Board. There are reputable and well-known outsiders on these Selection Boards, and if the Local Appointments Commissioners refuse to send down to the local authority, without cause which they can make known and be understood, the name of the candidates recommended by the Selection Board as the best qualified, there is going to be publicity, and publicity of a most damaging character to the Local Appointments Commissioners. When the recommendations are sent in by the Selection Board to the Local Appointments Commissioners documents accompany them, such as the candidate's application forms and testimonials. The Local Appointments Commissioners are able to, and as a matter of fact do, scrutinise these application forms and testimonials.

An official of the Local Appointments Commissioners, their secretary, is present at the meetings of the Selection Board, and if there was any trickery being done by the Selection Board the Local Appointments Commissioners have the means of checking and countering that. It is possible for them, if there seems to be any matter for suspicion, doubt or any lack of care or consideration on points of importance, to re-assemble the Selection Board and ask the members of it to look into or explain points that seem to be obscure. The check that Deputy de Valera seems to seek exists already. It exists in a form which has no harm in it but which undoubtedly gives confidence. It allows for the existence of confidence in candidates, and ensures that the best men be appointed. It does away with all the canvassing and, in certain cases, the corruption which existed under the old scheme.

I do not know that there was any other argument that seemed to be one of substance in Deputy de Valera's speech, except where he referred to the right that local authorities have to make appointments. I see no reason at all why officials should be chosen by the local authorities under which they are going to serve, just as I see no reason why officials acting in a Department of State should be chosen by the Minister. The officials of local authorities are no more the personal employees of the Council under which they serve, than civil servants are the personal employees of a Minister. The Minister is there temporarily acting on behalf of the public. Members of local authorities act similarly, and it seems to me to be quite proper that in both cases the selection of individuals to be employed should be made by the machinery which exists and which was designed to get the best value for the public by getting the best person in. In that way, you do a democratic thing: you give the best qualified person the appointment. There is no reason why a council that is in existence to-day, while half of its members may not be local representatives next month, should make appointments rather than that they should be made by the machinery which was designed for the definite purpose of securing fair play and efficiency.

The President referred to other points in connection with this Act. The only legal obscurity in the existing law is left untouched by this Bill, and by Section 6 of the Bill new obscurities are created. I think if anybody were to read Section 5 of the Act, as amended by Section 6 of this Bill, he would find that it would be quite impossible to gather what the effect of it was. There would be no saving in having the same persons Civil Service Commissioners and Local Appointments Commissioners. The staff is a joint one, and there could be no reduction of expenditure by making the change suggested. As the President pointed out, the only effect it would have would be to force a change in the personnel of the Civil Service Commission and in the personnel of the Local Appointments Commissioners.

If we could have got all the present personnel, with the present Chairman of the Civil Service Commission to act as Chairman of the Local Appointments Commissioners. We would certainly have appointed him, but as he was not willing to act we had to make other arrangements. We thought that his services in every respect were too valuable as Chairman of the Civil Service Commissioners to force him to resign if he would not undertake this new duty, which, while it is mechanically the same, is different, I think, essentially. There is no value in that part of the Bill. As the President pointed out, there are drafting defects in the Bill. I suppose they could be remedied, but at any rate it is unworkable as it stands. If we thought the present system was bad, there are various ways by which we could effect changes, but I see no virtue at all in the system proposed to be set up under this Bill. I think that we should not hold this Bill over, but that we should deal with it on its merits, that we should reject it, and that is the reason why I object to Deputy O'Connell's amendment. I do not think that we could hold out any hope that this Bill would be passed later on, or that it would be passed with some amendments. I think it is a bad Bill. I think it is an ill-considered Bill, and that it is perhaps the result of an attempt to reconcile conflicting opinions within a political party. It is illogical and unworkable. I think it is entirely a bad and useless Bill that ought to be forthwith thrown out.

I agree with Deputy O'Connell, but as there has been criticism, very ill-founded, and suspicion an inquiry would enable members of the Dáil, and through them other members of the public, to see exactly how the Local Appointments Commissioners work and the difficulties they have to contend with. That would be valuable, and the Government would be prepared to set up a committee which would do what Deputy O'Connell desires, except that we would draw the terms of reference in such a way that certain kinds of papers that ought to be confidential because of their personal effects could not be called for and made public.

Mr. M. O'REILLY

The Minister for Finance seems rather puzzling in the statement he has made. I wondered why the Executive when they tackled this problem recently did not adopt the Civil Service system completely. Probably that step might have saved all this trouble and would also have saved the Minister the trouble of using all these adjectives as regards the present Bill. This Bill would not have been introduced only that there were very good reasons for doing so. I believe the question we are examining to-night is a very important one for the future of the country. We all must remember that we are a new country, a country that has had no opportunity of learning how to govern. We have been without universities and, up to the present, without a proper system of education. The people through the country have had no opportunity of getting self-confidence so as to prepare themselves for the government of the country. As far as I can see, the Act is aimed very directly at breaking the confidence of the people in themselves. The reasons given for taking the powers of appointment from the local authorities are that they were open to all kinds of trickery, jobbery and corruption. I believe that we all in this House and in the country are of the same flesh and blood as the men on those local bodies. They are elected by the people to carry out certain duties, and I believe anything that is done to break the confidence of those people will eventually be detrimental to this State.

These local bodies are specially selected by the county councils. I admit that in previous times jobbery and corruption did exist, but then the outlook of the people was not what it is to-day. Remember there is a better spirit abroad to-day than we have ever had. We have a certain amount of confidence given to the people, and I believe the Government should make every effort to develop that confidence and give them the opportunity of selecting candidates that are locally fit and who have a thorough knowledge of the districts to which they are to be appointed. Dealing with this Bill, the President spoke of the question of economy. If this Bill were passed it would be necessary, I suppose, to pay certain officials. I do not say that that economy or the present economy makes a great deal of difference. As to the question of efficiency and qualifications, especially with reference to medical men, on paper they may have very high qualifications, but I am sure that as regards the medical profession there is such a thing as confidence in the doctor, and where that exists it goes a long way towards success. People are accustomed to certain doctors, and they are perhaps accustomed to have local men from their own county appointed, and they believe in these men for reasons of their own. Now the local bodies are not considered capable of selecting suitable men, but I believe they are.

After all, these bodies are to be in charge of their staff, and they should have the opportunity of selecting the officials who are to carry out their orders. As I have said in the beginning, this Bill will help to restore the confidence of those who are elected to the county councils. The plea to-day is very often made for eligible candidates for the county councils, capable men, men of ability, but they say, "What can we do, as we have no control over anything?" This Bill is the first step in breaking that lack of confidence. Why have such a thing as county councils? Why not have the whole local business directed by the central authority here in Dublin? There must have been some intention when local government was granted to the people, and I believe the intention was to give them a certain amount of training in self-government. Anything that breaks the confidence of the people in themselves is, I believe, detrimental to the future good government of this country.

Dr. HENNESSY

In considering this question I think it would be of some value to review the type of candidates before the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act was enacted, and the candidates who have come forward since. Previous to the Act being passed it frequently happened that a medical candidate passed his examination to-day, got his final degree conferred on him, and he went down the day after and got elected. That was his experience. This may be an accident or it may be an arrangement. However, he could not get elected if he had not a good number of friends on the local authority. It mattered very little what the professional experience of his opponents might be. It would count nothing for them if they had not friends enough on the Board. I am not going to go into the question of how the man happened to get so many friends on the Board, but there are people old enough in this House, and with experience enough of local authorities, to know that it was a very good provision if you wanted to get a local dispensary at the time the Board was being constituted to see that you paid good attention to it. Since the passing of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, a candidate soon came to realise he had very little chance of being appointed unless he could show a good deal of professional experience. I am speaking mostly of medical candidates. If a man could show he had six months' experience in a clinical hospital as a house surgeon and physician, and in addition if he took out a post-graduate degree as Master of Surgery, M.D., or one of the fellowships of the Royal Colleges—to get these things meant a good deal of time and cost to him— it meant for a certainty that he was going to be appointed. I ask—is not that appointment of greater value to the poor people of the district than the appointment of the candidate who, under the old régime had passed his examination one day, and went down to a district and was appointed the day after?

We hear a good deal about the poor here. The poor have votes, and for that reason we will hear at times what political parties are ready to do for the poor. Here you have an opportunity of doing something for the poor. It has been done for the poor. Keep it there. I have heard many medical appointments made by the Local Appointments Commissioners criticised. It was my business, and the business of the association, to keep a very watchful eye on the Appointments Commissioners to see that none but the very best men, those best entitled, would be put in No. 1 place. We kept an eye on them, and we can say honestly—I am speaking for the Medical Association— that none but the best men got the appointments. I have known a man with first-class honours through all his arts degree, honours through all his medical degree, a post-graduate work of distinction, distinction that was so far-reaching that it was recorded in other countries, to be appointed to first place for a dispensary. The local authority objected to him. Why did they object to him? Because he was a Kerry man. That was the only objection. In the very same place it happened that there was a local man and he was recommended by the Appointments Commissioners. He was a distinguished local man, but then there were other local men who had a number of friends on the local authority.

I have heard something about local experience. I do not know what that means. I could understand if you said that the man appointed should speak the language of the people. I could appreciate that. I believe that the interpretation of "local man" is one who knows the shortest cut from Knockna-Skeherooh to Mowamanahan in the Knockmealdown mountains. I think that is the qualification that would be put on local experience, and I think it is altogether of secondary importance to the fact that that man is better able to diagnose pneumonia, or able to set a fracture, than a candidate who was placed lower on the list.

The medical profession, as well as other people, were subjected to severe criticism with regard to canvassing and other doubtful means of election to these positions. As far back as 1911 this matter was brought to the notice of the professional organisation, and the profession has this much to its credit, that over 90 per cent. of them voted in favour of having these appointments made in future by competitive examination, or by some other means, such as have been adopted in the present Act. I know that the position of the local authorities is a difficult one. They are subjected to all kinds of influence and I know that decent men, owing to the influences brought on them, have been driven out of public life. They would not continue to be public representatives owing to the influences that were brought to bear on them. I am not going to talk about the purchasing of votes, but if a man owed money in a bank, and if it was found out who the sureties were, they were pressed into the canvassing campaign. It was very difficult for that class of men, no matter how well meaning they were, to act straight in the election, and the result was that they frequently voted against their better judgment and inclinations. We have heard it stated that there was dissatisfaction with the local authorities. Deputy de Valera dwelt on that and gave a fair indication of the dissatisfaction, but he also more or less triumphantly stated that there is dissatisfaction with the Appointments Commissioners. The Deputy did not tell us why there was dissatisfaction with the Appointments Commissioners. It has all been the result of the Commissioners having appointed the best men as against the local men.

Mr. COBURN

Question.

Dr. HENNESSY

Some would suggest that there was reason for an objection to the placing of the candidate by the Appointments Commissioners, or by the Selection Board. How was it that not one of these candidates ever brought the matter before their medical association? If there was any corruption in the making of appointments the first body that would take it up for them would be the medical association. No, they kept their whinings for the common people, as they have been called here, the people who did not understand and could not apprehend the nature of their complaints. They never brought them before the professional body that was competent to deal with them, for the simple reason that they had not a leg to stand on.

A panel of candidates has been suggested as a reasonable measure. Well, I think a panel of candidates is very objectionable. Deputy O'Connell has given a reason why it is objectionable. My main reason for calling it objectionable is that it will lead to canvassing. If you send the names of three candidates down to local authorities, without placing them, or making it incumbent on local authorities to elect them in the order of 1, 2 or 3, or whatever the order may be, that is very objectionable, because you are going back to the old régime. You will have canvassing and, if you wish, the bribery that went on to secure these appointments in the past. Moreover, I do not think any Selection Board under these circumstances would act. I cannot conceive how a medical board would agree to select candidates and number them 1, 2 or 3, knowing that No. 1 stood a good chance of being put last by the local authorities, and No. 3 picked out. If the Selection Board found that out it would not act again. Moreover, I know that if the Appointments Commissioners had in the past interfered with the placing of the candidates by the Selection Board the Selection Board would refuse to act, and a good deal more would be heard about it. I know that in the case of a medical board which would accept service under such conditions it would be undoubtedly repudiated by the profession, and it would not deserve the confidence of the profession. Somehow I see all through this Bill what I must describe as a yellow streak of venality. It is giving an opportunity to the weak and venal. Moreover, this cannot be lost sight of—that the Opposition has declared that it means, so far as it is within its political influence, to man the local authorities, and to get all their supporters on these bodies. To my mind, that is a very awkward thing, and the result will be suspicion. If you have a majority of one political party it will lead to canvassing on political lines. I have heard a very distinguished member of the front Opposition Bench, who is a colleague of mine in the representation of Dublin City South, say that the representatives on the local bodies had no inducement to act. He meant by that that patronage was taken out of their hands. The man who regards patronage of that kind as an inducement to go on a public board is, I say, potentially corrupt.

If this Bill be by any chance passed, the whole thing will lead to suspicion. In fact, when a candidate who deserved number one place is not elected, that candidate will possibly think, if the description fits his case, that his misfortune was that his politics were those of President Cosgrave, or his religion that of Robert Emmet or Wolfe Tone. You might also bear in mind that in sending down a panel of candidates there would be people uncharitable enough, whether it is well-founded or ill-founded, to think that it is to give an opportunity to select a candidate with certain political or religious opinions. Well, that would be a bad day for the graduate, say, of the National University, 90 per cent. of whom have to seek their living in other countries.

The one thing that surprised me about this Bill is that the Chancellor of the University should actually sponsor it in such circumstances, and this much I must say, that the fact of his sponsoring such a Bill is not consistent with his being an efficient Chancellor of the University. I make allowance for his difficulty, but there it is; if that Bill is passed into law the interpretations I have given you will be in vogue in a few days, and it will be a very serious thing for graduates of the National University, because I know a good deal of their difficulties in England and other places where they have to find a living, and the prejudices they have to surmount, and as sure as this Bill becomes law it will mean the end of the chances of a National University graduate finding employment outside this country. I hope that this Bill will be rejected; I hope, in the interests of decent administration, it will be rejected, and above all, I hope, in the interests of the poor people, that it will be rejected. These people are not dissatisfied with the candidates selected by the Appointments Commissioners. I have asked some of them, after a time, in certain places what they thought of a person selected. They spoke very highly of him, and so well they might, because these men were the best we had. For that reason I will ask you not to touch this Bill at all, but to defeat it by an overwhelming majority.

Mr. MAGUIRE

Speaking with some knowledge of the manner in which this Act has operated in the country, I do feel that it is due on my part to say that the Act is not satisfactory. But the primary objection to it is that the whole power of setting up the examining body lends itself to many of the disadvantages it is claimed that the Act would have remedied, as well as the fact that there are many obscurities in the whole transaction that leave the way open to insinuations that are certainly not favourable to the present administration. The underlying motive in having Appointments Commissioners at all was the intention that the system would remove the tendency on the part of local councillors to give perhaps an undue preference to local applicants—that by the removal of localism, or that personal touch, better administration would be secured. Many people may find it difficult to understand why the Dáil would find it necessary to pass a disqualifying verdict on the responsibilities of local representatives when one bears in mind that the election of county councillors is based on a much more conservative franchise than that employed for the election of representatives in this House. You must therefore place a certain amount of responsibility upon the people who elect the local representatives, and if you do not mean to be actually discourteous and very unfair to the local representatives, you certainly will not insinuate —and it is very much insinuated—that the local representatives are not responsible people.

Undoubtedly there has been a strong desire on the part of public bodies for some time back to have a scheme of this sort put into effect, because very often local representatives were at a disadvantage in finding the best candidates. The absence of any test was certainly a disadvantage, and local representatives very often found it an inconvenience. But they were not prepared to agree to having full power taken out of their hands, and at the same time have the insinuation made against them that they were incompetent, dishonest and open to corruption, and in that way that they were not fit to be public administrators. But it goes further: If we are to argue that the scheme in the past has been unsuccessful and requires alteration, we must naturally conclude that a great number of appointments made by the various county councils have been unsatisfactory. I wonder if the supporters of the Act here and the representatives of the Local Government Department admit that local officials all over the country are generally unsatisfactory?

The appointment of the examining body has already been referred to. Undoubtedly, as I have stated, the whole explanation of the Act is that there has been in the past too much local touch and that public representatives were not enabled to do according to their best intentions. But I have found that in the setting up of this examining body the Local Appointments Commissioners have, on some occasions at least, selected these examining bodies from the local people. What I fail to understand is how it can be claimed that the local representatives, selected by the people to act as county councillors, cannot be trusted to act impartially, and that local people in some instances have actually been appointed from the boards who have later to make the appointment, and I cannot understand how these men can be discovered to be honest and fair-minded by a few men up in Dublin. I think that is inconsistent. What makes the thing very objectionable is that when the examination takes place and the result is sent down by the Local Appointments Commissioners, they give no public announcement of the result of that examination, beyond sending down the name of the selected candidate to the local body. If they are to remove any doubts in the minds of the people—why people—and I assure you there are doubts in the minds of the people—why not submit the result of the examination in respect of all the candidates. and let the local body see how the position stood? But it is a matter of closing the desk upon every applicant's position except the one selected, and that gives a good deal of foundation for the belief that there is not fair play and that the best candidate does not get the position. The Minister for Finance referred to the great results of this system as shown by the fact that the number of applicants for these posts has considerably increased. I can tell him, from opinions gathered in the country, that the opposite will be the result, because a strong opinion prevails, grounded upon a good deal of fact, that on account of the secrecy that is observed by the Appointments Commissioners, the number of applicants will be very much reduced.

I referred here on another occasion to the appointment of an assistant matron in the mental hospital and I pointed out that in the opinion of the Sligo and Leitrim Joint Committee the appointment was not carried out in such a manner as would justify them in agreeing to it. The result was that they turned down the decision. Notification of the examination was sent out five days before the examination. One of the applicants was at home when she made her application, but subsequently had gone to a position in England. The letter notifying her of the examination was sent to her home address, and by the time it reached her she could not give notice and be back in time for her examination.

General MULCAHY

Why did she not advise them of her change of address?

Mr. MAGUIRE

I am not in a position to answer that, but it seems strange that only five days' notice of the examination should be given. Some allowance should be made for changes of address like that, particularly as the appointment was under consideration for at least two months before the Commissioners fixed the date of the examination. Cases such as that show conclusively that the Act is not appreciated by the country. I know of public bodies that approved of the principle of the scheme at the outset, but who from their experience of its administration have definitely set their faces against it. I say to Ministers that if they want to restore the confidence that local bodies should have in themselves and the self-respect that is necessary, if they are to become honest administrators, this House should have confidence in them and hand them back the authority to make selections for appointments according to their own honest judgment. The attitude of the present Appointments Commissioners shows entire lack of confidence in these public representatives. If that spirit is encouraged, the result will be that there will be great difficulty in finding honest, self-respecting men to act on local councils, because they are being branded as incompetent persons who are open to corruption. If these are the kind of men that Deputies opposite are putting forward as their candidates in this election, I shall be surprised if the country does not express its opinion of what it thinks of them, because, after all, the country does not like men who distrust themselves.

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Bourke)

I am fundamentally in agreement with the Minister for Finance in deploring the fact that Deputy O'Connell has drawn this red herring in the shape of an amendment across this Bill. I agree on principle with the amendment. I do not consider that the Act in its original form was absolute perfection. Every Act after it has been working for a certain period of time, can be amended to advantage, but I consider that this Bill, introduced by Deputy de Valera, strikes right at the heart of the Principal Act. For that reason I think that opportunity should be given to the Dáil to decide on this particular Bill before we deal with the question of Deputy O'Connell's amendment. I must say that this Bill introduced by Deputy de Valera occasioned me very considerable surprise—surprise, not so much at the contents of the measure itself, as at the source from which it comes. In pre-Treaty days, when many Deputies opposite stood with Deputies on these Benches on a common platform, one of the most cherished planks of that platform was the policy of recruiting officers and employees for local authorities, as to the Civil Service, on the principle of open competitive examination.

Mr. LEMASS

We stand for it still.

Mr. BOURKE

And the appeal that produced perhaps the readiest response from the electorate that might be considered as independent, as having no Party affiliations, was that epitomised in the slogan "On merit alone." It would not occasion me any great surprise if the Party in office, confronted with all the difficulties and with the tough realities of administration, had found it necessary to compromise on that idea, and had found it necessary to run away from former promises, but for a Party not faced with those pressing difficulties, for a Party whose hands are as free now as they were at the time when these promises were made, and, moreover, for a Party which has never missed any opportunity of twitting us with, as they allege, having departed from the straight and narrow path laid down by the founders of the Sinn Féin movement, this is certainly a strange and unexpected departure—a departure so unexpected, in fact, that I can find no explanation for it, apart, perhaps, from the proximity of the local elections.

I do not wish in this matter to take up a partisan attitude. I was the one primarily responsible for introducing this Act, and I can assure the House that it was not introduced as a political measure. It was not a measure from which any political kudos was to be obtained. It was an unpopular measure at the time and I realised that very well. It was an Act that was very much criticised, but it is a more popular Act to-day, and its popularity will increase as time goes on and as people realise the good that the Act has conferred upon the public in general. I was in the position of being required to deal with this difficult situation and I was prepared to face the political consequences of doing it. Perhaps, to some extent, I may have suffered in consequence.

It being now 10.30 p.m., the debate stood adjourned.