Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jun 1928

Vol. 24 No. 4

PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - LOCAL AUTHORITIES (OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES) BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE (RESUMED).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be read a Second Time."

Debate resumed on the following amendment:—

To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute the words "the Second Reading of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Bill, 1928, be deferred until a Select Committee, empowered to send for persons, papers and records, has inquired into and reported upon the working of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926. —(Tomás O'Conaill.)

Mr. J. WOLFE

I have just been wondering where I was at the adjournment of this debate, but I think I had succeeded in convincing every section of this House that of the ten local appointments I had got prior to the Act of 1926 not one had been given on the grounds of merit. It is right also that I should tell you, A Chinn Comhairle, for your personal edification, and it might be useful as a precedent, as to how I got one of the appointments. At a certain time when a local body was being charged by the predecessor in title of the present Minister for Local Government with a breach of a statutory duty it became imperative that the body should appoint a solicitor, the previous solicitor having gone to a better world. Accordingly, an election was called for. The local solicitor, a man of capacity and standing in his profession, adopted the usual customary role of canvassing for the position. When it came to the day of the election I was proposed and seconded, not having asked a single member of the council to vote for me, either directly or indirectly. I was proposed and some other member of the council got up and proposed that the local solicitor be appointed, but the chairman promptly ruled his amendment out of order. He said the matter was too serious and I was declared unanimously elected. I give that as a precedent which may come in useful some time in the future.

We have heard during this debate, and I think we had them three times last week from Deputy de Valera, lectures on moral responsibility. I personally would say nothing of any nature offensive to Deputy de Valera —he never said anything offensive to anybody—but I say of the many strange roles he has occupied during his time, and he has occupied many, none is more strange and more unfitted to him, in my respectful submission to the House, than the role of professor of moral obligations. Not to be outdone, he was followed by Deputy Ward who spoke as to what had to be taken into consideration when he applied for that position in Monaghan which it is hoped by some people would become vacant in a short period. He says that when it becomes vacant and he becomes an applicant for it that the electoral moral code must be taken into consideration. I do know what I should say in reply, and that is that if Deputy Ward does apply for that appointment to the Local Appointments Commission and sends with his application a copy of the speech which he made in this House on Friday last, and if the Local Appointments Commission appoint him I would be in favour of repealing the Act in its entirety.

It has been said by Deputy Ward that the poor man must suffer under the Act as it stands. The Act as it stands is the poor man's charter. Let there be no mistake about it. Deputy Ward tries to side-track the issue by telling us that the poor man's son has no chance unless he gets a post-graduate course. What is there in a post-graduate course? Let him be consistent. He tells you that, over and above these things, you must look to a man's moral code. What is there in a post-graduate course that will strengthen a man's moral code? So far as I understand a post-graduate course, a man's moral code would be just as narrow and bigoted after that course as it was before it. I repeat that that Act, about which I had hoped I would have heard something from members on the Labour Benches, is the poor man's charter and must be looked on as such. I dislike its title. The title is wrong. It should be called "An Act to perpetuate, foster, and encourage corruption." It can have no other effect. It is intended to have no other effect, and any man who wants the local authorities of our country to do their duty free from corruption, free from jobbery, must, as the only alternative open to him, vote against the Bill.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I would like to say a few words in regard to this Bill. I want to say at the outset that I look on this Bill, not as an amending Bill, but as one to repeal the Act, because if it were carried and if it were made mandatory on the Public Appointments Commissioners to send down at least three names to the local authority, you might as well scrap the original Act immediately. I want to say that we supported and voted for the original Act because we were then, and are still, convinced that under that Act the poor man's son for the first time, if he had the ability, got a fair chance. If the best man is to be appointed, no case can be made for sending down three names. We know quite well, and no Deputy can blind himself to the fact, that if the names of three candidates are sent down, the three of them may be qualified, but while the man placed first may have got twenty or thirty marks more than the man placed third on the list, if the man placed third on the list is able to exert more influence with a particular public body than the man placed first, undoubtedly the man whose name is third on the list will get the position. That is a fact. I say that as one who has had a few years' experience of public bodies. I say that of my own knowledge. For the last eight or nine years there has been an improvement in public bodies. There has been a better outlook, and there has been very little corruption or bribery compared to what there was previously.

We do not claim that a poor man's son should get any preference, and when Deputy Ward states that the Act works against the poor man, that because a man can get a post-graduate course and become better qualified than a poor man's son, there is an injustice to a poor man's son, we say that we do not claim that a poor man's son should get the appointment unless he is at least as well qualified as any other applicant. We want nothing for the poor man's son except bare justice, and it is because we want that and to see that he will get a fair show we are in favour of the Act. I want to give the Dáil an illustration of what happened very recently. A certain public body in my own constituency were continuously criticising and protesting against the Act, and their protest was mainly on the ground that it was an insult to the members of public bodies, that if the Act was never there they would appoint the best man. Let us see what happened last year. This was in my own constituency. This particular local authority had occasion to appoint a man to take charge of the engines and machinery in an institution, and they decided to advertise for a man for that position. They decided at their meeting to ask the firm that had supplied the machinery to send down one of their best men to hold an examination into the qualifications of the applicants. That was done.

There were nine or ten applicants. The examination was held, and the examiner sent in his report to the County Board of Health and allotted his marks as a result of the examination. In his report he stated that he could not understand how a man with the ability of the person put first on the list was applying for such a small job. He said that if he were to apply for the position of foreman in their own works he would have no hesitation in recommending him. Notwithstanding that, the Board by a majority appointed the man fifth on the list. If there was nothing else except that one case, it would force me to vote against this Bill. If the promoters of it want to see men appointed on merit, only because of their qualifications, and not because of any opinions they may have, then, I think, they are very ill-advised in putting forward the Bill. For the reasons I have given, and for no other reasons, I will be compelled to vote against the Bill. There is just another point I want to mention. I agree that there has been a good deal of criticism of the main Act and the working of it. Whether that is well founded or not I do not know. Personally I believe that a lot of it is not, but some of it may be well founded. For that reason we have put down an amendment, but I suggest that you are not going to improve the position by making the Civil Service Commissioners rather than the Public Appointments Commissioners responsible for the duty put upon them. It is said that the Public Appointments Commissioners are unpopular, and that people have not confidence in them. What is the reason? The reason, I suggest, is simply because the Public Appointments Commissioners have been making appointments, and I suggest, if this Bill were carried and if the Civil Service Commissioners were made responsible for administering the Act, that, within one month of that responsibility being put upon them, the Civil Service Commissioners would be just as unpopular, and would receive as much criticism as the Public Appointments Commissioners. That, I think, is a fact, and, that being so, I cannot see my way to support the Bill.

Mr. G. BOLAND

Deputy Morrissey has had the advantage of being able to give us details of an appointment that was made in Tipperary. I take it that if we could be in the happy position of finding some of the details of the appointments made by this body there might be a lot to be said for the body. The first point is that, after all the talk that has been going on about corruption in connection with public bodies, when boiled down all we have got from the Minister is one particular case in which the people who were found guilty were prosecuted. There is just the same amount of talk, perhaps more, about this particular body which is now in charge of public appointments. The Minister has been challenging us to produce some specific case of corruption. He challenged us with an air of assurance that there were no leakages. That in itself was suspicious. I do not believe it would be possible in the case of a body which works along the lines of this Public Appointments Commission for anybody to produce what the Minister asked for —a specific case with all the details attached, whereas in the case of public bodies it is entirely different. We have had one case quoted by Deputy Morrissey in which he really knew the order of merit of the different applicants for the position. I suggest that he knew that because the local body was cognisant of the facts. The same thing happened in County Roscommon where there was a case of corruption. The people got to know about it and men of public spirit took action, with the result that those who were in fault were punished. The present arrangement is that what I would call a star chamber body, and that is what it is, has charge of these appointments. It is certainly a most objectionable method. How are we going to find out what has happened there?

The Minister for Finance, for instance, said that he was inclined to support Deputy O'Connell's amendment in a good many points, but that the matter of sending for papers was one of the points which he could not support. I suggest that there are good reasons why he could not do that. They are confidential, he said, and he mentioned some of the particulars in which they are confidential, but he left out some others. Perhaps I could throw some light on that. Perhaps the political opinions of some of the applicants would have something to do with it. That, I suggest, is a more important reason why these documents could not be produced. It comes in the long run to a matter of confidence. Everybody admits that. Does anybody suggest that there is confidence in the administration of the present Act? This Party represents at least one-third of the people of this country and we are not satisfied with it. We know that people have been turned down for political reasons.

In regard to the Civil Service itself, I would invite the Government to have a show down of their appointments since 1922. Let us know all the people who got temporary appointments since 1922. Then we will have some information. Let us examine who these people are and what their claims are. It is well known that a lot of those who were put in for political reasons were afterwards allowed to sit for a very inferior type of examination, and they qualified. After having filled up all the gaps in the Civil Service, the Government proceeded to get control of local appointments altogether. The President tells us, and it seems also to be the opinion of those who spoke against the Bill, that if the third, fourth, or the fifth man is selected he is the third, fourth, or fifth man according to merit. We are not suggesting that the names of the men should not be sent down in order of merit, but that the House should see that the people applying for positions should be qualified, and if there is a body which is prepared to allow the Civil Service Commissioners to make an appointment, if they find that in any particular district things would not be done as they would like them, they can ask the Civil Service Commissioners to send down the name of only one man. As I said before it all amounts to confidence, and I would like to see what guarantee or proofs we have of confidence. I say we have far less guarantees that this body which is acting now will be as immune from corruption, if you like, because it is not confined to people in the country. Corruption can come as far as Dublin just as it can come to the country. A specific case cannot be produced for the reason that it is done in a star chamber way. That in itself has been a very serious objection, whereas if the Council gets the option of having several names sent down it can judge for itself. At least there is a choice. The Bill provides that not less than three names will be sent down if a panel is asked for. There may be canvassing and all that, as there was under the old system. I am not at all advocating a return to the old system for the reason I stated, that there may be cases where it is essential to have the appointments made at headquarters, but in any case where corruption occurred the knowledge that it had occurred spread all round the country and people were prosecuted. If anything like that occurs in the future the same thing could happen, and these people will be removed at the elections from the bodies on which they sit. Public opinion will see that they are punished. What happens to the present body that makes its appointments in this way is quite another matter. There may be all sorts of influences, and I fear there are all sorts of influences worked there, political and other influences. That is the opinion of a very large section in this country. We have no choice; we have to put up with it.

Some people say there are three secret societies pulling the wires. I know one myself. I was a member before it became a job-seeking society. That is the I.R.B. I know it has a big influence. I know that people have been impeached in this House for filling the service or one department of the service, with nominees of this society. I am not satisfied that that is not taking place now. One member praised the Appointments Commissioners. I do not wish to condemn any public official, but I certainly say they should stop it. If they praise them we claim the right to attack them, to attack people in the Government service. I am prepared to attack them, not under cover, but in the open. They are people who would stoop to anything to get their own back on political opponents, and I think that there is a good case for passing this Bill. Deputy O'Connell has been told already by the Minister principally responsible —the Minister for Finance—that what he wants in his amendment cannot be granted. That is the papers in connection with these appointments. I suggest there are other reasons besides those given by the Minister, reasons which should not weigh with any decent people. That is the reason this amendment cannot be accepted. That inquiry would satisfy our Party, if we could be sure that we would get all the papers in connection with the appointments. I am perfectly certain that we want all public appointments to be made honestly, fairly and squarely and that every citizen of the country should have the right to claim these positions on merit. That will not happen. If this inquiry is granted it will be a white-washing thing. You will not get access to the papers you require, and it will be valueless. I say here and now that that body is worked on political lines. There has been discrimination against people of a certain type. That is a statement over which I can stand.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

Will the Deputy say how this Bill will prevent that, if it is taking place?

Mr. BOLAND

I do not say that it could altogether do that, but there should be a discretion left with the public boards. If, for instance, a board wants to take a chance, let them ask the Civil Service Commission to send down a man; but if they do not, and they get a panel, it will be open to them to pick from the panel sent down.

Mr. O'CONNELL

The panel might be all of the right colour.

Mr. BOLAND

They might or might not be. It comes in the long run to a question of confidence, and I say that the people, with the searchlight of public opinion on them, and with the clean searchlight of local opinion in a country place, which watches every move, will be far better able to judge whether it is corruption or not than they can judge in a case like this where four officials do the work. That is the reason why I think the Labour Party ought to think twice before they vote against the Bill.

Mr. BRENNAN

As one having some connection with local authorities for some time past, and having something to do with the uprooting of the evil of corruption in Roscommon when it made its appearance there, I wish to say a few words on this. I think the promoters of the Bill have failed to grasp the underlying principle of the original Act. The original Act tried to get the best men appointed, to give the poor man's son an equal chance with the rich man's son, and to prevent corruption. These were the three things aimed at and, to my mind, the Act has justified itself. I am rather surprised to hear the allegations made by Deputy Boland with regard to people being turned down by the Appointments Commissioners for political reasons. This is the first time I have ever heard that allegation. I certainly did hear allegations against the Appointments Commissioners from various quarters, but I always found them being made by people who do not understand the procedure. I do not think that people who speak as Deputy Boland spoke understand the procedure. If they did these statements would not have been made.

Mr. BOLAND

If the Deputy knew as much as I do, he would think otherwise.

Mr. BRENNAN

I think I have more experience of the working of these things than Deputy Boland has. I have seen appointments made, and I want to take this opportunity of saying that, although Roscommon came forward to uproot that evil of corruption, the evil was never in Roscommon until that time. Immediately it made its appearance we uprooted it. To a large extent the exposing of the evil in Roscommon is responsible for this Bill, and I am glad of it. If Deputy Boland and other Deputies are right that there can be discrimination against candidates, we have been entirely misled with regard to the method of selection. My understanding of it is—and I hope if I am wrong the Minister for Local Government will correct me—that a Selection Board is set up by the Appointments Commissioners. These boards are drawn from various people over the country—from the medical profession if it is a medical appointment, and so on. The members of the Selection Board do not know the applicants when they come to sit in judgment and the applicants do not know the Selection Board. How there could be bribery and corruption in that case I do not know. That is what we are led to believe. The Selection Board, at least so we are told, send on the best names to the Commission.

Mr. LEMASS

Do the Selection Board send on the names to the local authority?

Mr. BRENNAN

They do not; they send the names to the Appointments Commissioners. That is my understanding of it, and I take it in good faith; I take it that the best man is always selected, and I believe it. If I believed otherwise, there is no Deputy who would oppose the continuation of the Act as much as I would. I know what these things are. I know what the making of local appointments is— I have experience of it, perhaps bitter experience.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (General Mulcahy)

Does Deputy Lemass suggest that when certain recommendations are made by the Selection Board to the Appointment Commissioners the Commissioners set these recommendations aside from political bias and that the people on the Selection Board say nothing about it and continue to serve?

Mr. LEMASS

Will the Minister state definitely if the person placed first by the Selection Board is always recommended to the local authority?

General MULCAHY

I have nothing —good, bad or indifferent—to do with the Appointments Commissioners. The function of the Minister is to see, when a person is recommended by the Commissioners for an appointment, that that person is appointed.

Mr. LEMASS

Will you answer the question: When the Selection Board meets and puts the candidates in order of merit, is the man placed first on the list the man whom the Appointments Commissioners send to the local authority?

General MULCAHY

As far as I know, yes.

Mr. MacENTEE

To what Department are the Local Appointments Commissioners responsible for the proper discharge of their duty?

General MULCAHY

If Deputies were taking any interest in the Appointments Commission and the discussions which took place with regard to it, they would realise that the President has always made himself responsible for the Commission, in order to show that it was not influenced by any Department of the Government. The President takes upon himself the responsibility for answering to this House for everything that the Commissioners do.

Mr. MacENTEE

Why is the President not in his place to defend this Commission then? He has not been here during this debate. He is leaving it to some person who admits that he cannot speak for them.

General MULCAHY

The President has never been absent when it was his responsibility to answer for anything.

Mr. BOLAND

Is not the policy, the spoils to the victor?

General MULCAHY

I say that the introduction of the question of political bias now is raising a new hare to get away from the hare of corruption, which has been very definitely dropped by members speaking from the other side.

Mr. LEMASS

It is the same thing.

General MULCAHY

Is it a new name?

Mr. BRENNAN

If a local authority is to get down a panel of three names it takes away the three points for which the original Act was passed—that is, the appointment of the best man, giving the poor man's son an equal chance with the rich man's son, and preventing corruption. Deputy Boland has said that they want three names sent down, not in order of merit, but that they should be qualified for the position. I suppose 75 per cent. of the local appointments in the country are appointments of doctors. I have never known any applicant for a medical appointment who was not qualified. In the case in Roscommon, where bribery and corruption were proved, there were only three applicants for the position. So that I do not see any merit whatever in sending down a panel of three names. There is absolutely none, as far as I can see. The Appointments Commissioners hold office, as far as I can understand, at the will of the Executive Council. If the present Bill is passed, the Civil Service Commission will be in the position of making the appointments. I wonder which would be the better of the two from Deputy Boland's point of view? I do not see how the Bill is going to get over the discrimination which they allege against the Appointments Commission. I do not see how the Civil Service Commission will get over it.

Certainly I do not agree, and I have said so in this House, with the interpretation of a certain section of the Act as it exists, but I agreed with the Act when passed. I think it was a good measure, and I think that if the public got the best man, which I believe they do, they have nothing to cavil at. Because I differ from the opinion of the Minister for Local Government in the interpretation of a certain section of the Act I desire to support Deputy O'Connell's amendment. I think that some examination should be made, particularly with regard to Section 5, and I think that the local authorities all over the country are entitled to have their views heard on the matter.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

Deputy Ward in speaking on the Bill now before the House said that there appears to be a good deal of confusion in the minds of some Deputies as to what the real purpose of the Bill is. Might one ask the House what is the real purpose of the Bill proposed from the point of view of Deputies opposite? Is it to see that the best men are qualified and that the best qualified men obtained the posts? Is it to see that the best appointments are made? I suggest that is not the object. Anybody who listened to the analysis of the Bill by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health can only come to one conclusion, and that conclusion is that this Bill was never intended to pass. The Minister for Local Government, by his analysis of the Bill, has shown the measure to be illogical, impossible, and utterly unthinkable. We suggest that the object for which this Bill has been introduced is purely political propaganda and nothing else.

We are about in a few days to elect the new Councils in the country, and this Bill has been held out with one object and one object only, and that is the restoration of patronage to those people who in the past proved that they were not fit to use the patronage that was placed in their keeping. I listened to a Deputy who does not belong to our Party frankly telling this House how the public appointments were filled in the past. Anybody who heard Deputy Wolfe explain how the appointments by the local boards were made must come to the conclusion that the Act which we on this side of the House are now defending was entirely justified, and has achieved its object.

Mr. ANTHONY

On a point of order, which Deputy Wolfe is Deputy Byrne referring to? Deputy Jasper Wolfe did not make any such statement. He suggested if anything that while some things might have operated against him in his selection for positions of emolument under public boards that at least one thing was not a disability, namely, his religion. I would like, therefore, if Deputy Byrne would just give us an indication as to whom he is referring to. Is he referring to Deputy Jasper Wolfe or to the other Deputy Wolfe?

Mr. COONEY

The Wolfe in sheep's clothing.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

I am referring to Deputy Jasper Wolfe. In speaking on this Bill Deputy Jasper Wolfe made the very statement that Deputy Anthony attributes to him. He paid one of the greatest tributes to this country of freedom from religious intolerance. It might be just as well to quote Deputy Jasper Wolfe's own words. He said:—

"I, like other members, voted for the man I knew best, for the candidate whose friends I knew best, but I never voted for a relative. I did like everybody else. It was the common custom. We all held it our duty to vote for the candidate we knew best or whose friends we knew best, but while that was so, we all looked forward to the day when we would be relieved of that responsibility. Those who were interested in the national cause at the time looked forward to the day when we would have a Parliament and a Civil Service of our own, free and unbiased, and when we could impose that duty on a body such as we have in existence to-day in the case of the Appointments Commissioners."

Putting these two statements of Deputy Wolfe side by side, what conclusion can any man come to here who is not influenced by his own political opinion, but looks upon the appointment and the creation of appointments made from the real standpoint of merit and merit alone—what conclusion can any Deputy come to but that in the past the old County Councils failed most miserably in this particular respect in the discharge of their public duties? Are we now to restore to them that old system of jobbery and patronage? Perhaps, at the present time, while the elections are being fought, some party capital may be made out of this Bill in the country by members of the Fianna Fáil Party opposite, but as far as doing anything practical, as far as improving the status of the men we appoint, as far as filling these appointments on the merits which Deputy Boland claims, this Bill has nothing whatever in it to recommend it to this House.

Deputy Ward spoke about the appointment of fully qualified men. I think Deputy Brennan answered that very admirably. He told the House that most of the cases under consideration were appointments of medical men, and he knew of no man in the medical profession whose name was sent down to fill these appointments who was not qualified. I venture to point out to Deputy Ward, who as a doctor and graduate of the National University knows as well as I do, there are various grades and various standings in the obtaining of a degree in the University and all the learned professions as in practically every other walk of life. He knows as well as I do that there are such things as honour degrees, such things as gold medallists for courses either in the medical or legal profession. And what the Appointments Commission has done, as far as the filling of these appointments is concerned, is to appoint the best men who hold the highest credentials and who are best qualified to discharge their duties. But, said Deputy Ward, doctors with the highest qualifications are often a failure. Was there ever such a silly statement made in a House of this kind as that statement by Deputy Ward? That was a statement unsupported by one single solitary argument. That was a statement that no graduate in a university could support. That was a statement as illogical as it is impossible.

Anybody who has any idea of the training through which men in the learned professions pass knows very well that those men who reach the top of the ladder—that those men who make their mark, whether in science, art, law or medicine—are men, in nine cases out of ten, who have had a distinguished course generally in passing through their university careers. We find that the Appointments Commissioners have chosen the most eminent of those men to fill these posts. I would also suggest that in the filling of these posts, as Deputy Brennan very justly said, the poor man's son came in for his own and that the appointment was filled upon merit. Deputy Ward held that the poor man's son had no possibility of being appointed under the present system. This was another wild statement, made without a shred of argument to support it. Anybody who thinks for a moment of how the son of the poor man obtains his qualifications in the learned professions knows that they are generally obtained through securing scholarships in the various universities, and that these poor men's sons are the cream of the country; that those poor men's sons when they go to the university are a credit to the university, and that they are, in nine cases out of ten, honours graduates and very frequently gold medallists.

I can recall one instance in the city of Dublin where, in one family, five men went through the Christian Brothers' Schools in Westland Row and each obtained a scholarship in the National University and, in addition, each and every one of them obtained the very highest honours degrees. Four of these five men are to-day filling lucrative appointments, and why? Because in passing through the university their record was as honourable as their record in passing through the schools.

How can Deputy Ward justify a statement such as he made? Deputy Ward suggested that we on these benches have no right to raise our voices on behalf of the universities at all. We have many men sitting on these benches who are graduates of the universities and who, perhaps, know as much about the question as Deputy Ward. I think that was a most uncalled-for and unjustifiable claim on behalf of Deputy Ward. We on these benches claim that we have just as much right to speak on behalf of the universities as have the Fianna Fáil Deputies on the benches opposite. I would remind Deputies on the opposite benches of one very extraordinary fact which perhaps slipped the memory of Deputy Ward, and it was this: Deputy Ward said that we had no right to speak on behalf of the National University——

Mr. FAHY

On a point of order, would the Deputy tell us the exact words which Deputy Ward used, if he made that statement, which I deny? I was here present when Deputy Ward spoke. I know he referred to one particular Deputy on the opposite benches, not to everybody. I would like to have the exact words that Deputy Ward used. I would like to have them quoted.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

Deputy Ward's speech runs into several pages, and I cannot at the moment quote the passage from it that the Deputy wants.

Mr. G. BOLAND

The Deputy should withdraw.

Mr. COONEY

Where did Deputy Byrne get the quotation?

Mr. BYRNE

Even supposing the suggestion was made by Deputy Ward to a Deputy on this side, that no voice should be raised from these benches here on behalf of the universities, I say that Deputy Ward should not take up that standpoint.

Mr. COONEY

In view of the fact that Deputy Byrne does not substantiate the quotation, he should withdraw it.

General MULCAHY

Does the Deputy, on behalf of Deputy Ward, withdraw the suggestion made?

Mr. MacENTEE

He did not make the suggestion at all.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy should make it clear that he is not quoting the exact words.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

I have not the exact words of Deputy Ward here. I have pointed out that the speech on the last night made by the Deputy ran to several pages of the Official Report, but I have given the substance of what, in my opinion, is a fair construction of what Deputy Ward meant. His words may not have been quite so wide in their application, perhaps, as I suggested now, but that the words were used I have no doubt whatever, because they are recorded in the Official Reports of this House.

Mr. CARNEY

Have you read the speech?

Mr. COONEY

The usual misrepresentation.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

I was just referring to the National University. Some Deputies on the other side think I have no right to speak on behalf of the National University at all.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Will the Deputy please speak on the Bill?

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

I will speak as closely as I possibly can to the Bill. But for these interruptions I would not have deviated one iota from the subject before the House.

Mr. MacENTEE

May I interrupt Deputy Byrne to point out what Deputy Ward did say? It is in direct contradiction to what Deputy Byrne says he did say.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes, if Deputy Byrne gives way.

Mr. MacENTEE

I refer you to column 343 of the Debates. It is at the top of the page. Deputy Ward is reported as having said, in reply to an interjection: "There are Deputies on these benches who are more entitled to speak about university degrees than certain other Deputies because they are university graduates." He did not say that nobody on the other side was entitled to speak on university degrees.

Dr. HENNESSY

From what Deputy MacEntee has said he has made it quite clear that there were so many graduates of the National University on the opposite side that they were able to look after the National University, and that I, not being a graduate of the National University, and that the Government Party generally, had very little right to speak for the National University.

Mr. MacENTEE

I have read the words that were used by Deputy Ward.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

I remember the quotation now. Deputy Hennessy has brought it back to my mind. I remember Deputy Ward clearly saying that there were four members of the National University on the opposite benches and that they were better qualified to speak on that particular aspect of the question than those on the Government Benches. The words that I have used are true in substance and in fact. They may not be the exact words. To get back to the whole point at issue, I would like to remind the House that in September last at the election for the National University there were two Teachtaí elected and sent to this House——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Oh, now!

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

I appeal to the Chair. I am justified in answering Deputy Ward and in showing that the two representatives elected last September by the National University——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The National University election has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

I am contesting a statement made by a member on the opposite benches. I submit I am entitled to rebut that statement. If that statement has been permitted to be made by a Deputy on the opposite side, a Deputy on this side is entitled if he can to rebut it. I will dispose of it in half-a-dozen words. I would merely remind this House that at the last election in September the National University selected in the person of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and in the person of Professor Tierney two candidates to sit and vote with the Government Party in this House. The electors of the National University knew perfectly well that the men they placed at the top of the poll had voted for the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926. I think that disposes absolutely of the statement made by Deputy Ward.

Just one word in conclusion. It has been stated in this House that under the present system of appointments there can be no chance whatever for those holding Republican or Fianna Fáil views. That was a statement, like other wild statements made in this House, that was entirely unsupported by any evidence, and it was a statement without the slightest justification. I would recall that, so far as the appointments are concerned, Deputy Boland thought it was fair that these appointments should be filled on merit and on merit alone. We, on these benches, have proved that merit and merit alone has been taken into consideration. I can call to mind one appointment where an immediate member of the family of a member on the Front Bench on the opposite side received a medical appointment quite recently. If the Commissioners were animated by political bias they would never, under any circumstances, have made such an appointment. The fact that such an appointment has been made is clearly a rebuttal of the unsupported statement made by Deputy Ward.

Let us get down to the whole facts at issue. The Appointments Commissioners have done very useful service to the State. They have, in the words of Deputy Brennan, put an end to corruption. Allegations of corruption were made by members on the opposite side, but there has not been a single instance of corruption proved in this House. If statements of corruption are made on a matter of public importance like this, there should be some evidence to support them. There has not been one word of evidence to support the charge of corruption in these cases. I think, as the Minister for Local Government and Public Health has said, we have been now switched off from the point of view of corruption to get on to something else. I have no doubt but that this Bill that is now before the House will be defeated. It deserves to be defeated. It has no merits to recommend it. As I said, it was never intended to pass. It was introduced purely as political propaganda and to have an effect upon the Local Government elections that will be held in a few days. We feel sure that the people in the country have far too much common-sense to be taken in by this Bill which is being dangled before their noses, and I hope that the result of the elections will prove that we are right.

Mr. LEMASS

In order to bring the discussion back to the actual Bill that is before the House, I would like to remind Deputies that this is not a Bill to abolish the existing Act. It is a Bill to amend it. It is not proposed by Deputies on this side of the House to revert to the old system in its entirety. We believe that there are objections to the present system. We believe that there are objections to the old system, but that the system proposed by this Bill is a better system than either of them. I do not deny that political prejudice might not operate just as fiercely in a local body, and that a person holding particular political views might have as little chance of getting an appointment under a local body under the old system as he might have now under the Local Appointments Commissioners.

I believe that political influence does play a considerable part in the appointments that are made by the Local Appointments Commissioners, and I believe other influences might also operate when they are arriving at their decisions. I agree that the same objections can be levelled, and justly levelled, against the old system of making public appointments. I do not think that any perfect system can be devised, human nature being what it is and the system of local government being what it is. But we want to get a system that will ensure the least possible amount of corruption and the best possible results.

Deputy Dr. Hennessy, when speaking on this Bill, misquoted a speech I made upon the estimate for the Department of Local Government and Public Health. He represented me as having said that because patronage was being taken out of the hands of members of local bodies, therefore the best type of member would not in future be secured for these bodies. I said nothing of the sort. What I did say, and I will repeat it, is this, that when the attitude of the Government is that they say to every member of every public board, and to every candidate for a public board, "You are potentially corrupt; you are not to be trusted in the making of public appointments. Because you are a member of a public board, or a candidate for a public board, you are probably dishonest." I say that while that is the attitude of the Government, the situation thus created is one which will not produce on public boards the best types of members. If Deputy Dr. Hennessy has any doubt about that, I would ask him to consult the campaign managers of his own Party. They have been very active recently getting ratepayers' candidates all over the country. Look at their names in the paper. Did you ever see such a collection of ward-heelers and job-hunters in your life? The campaigners of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party would be very anxious to get good candidates elected to public boards because these candidates, by their proper administration of local affairs, would bring credit to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. But they have not been able to do so, and I suggest one reason is because the system of local government is breaking down in consequence of the Government's policy.

Now, Deputy Brennan said that the purpose of the Principal Act was threefold. Firstly, it was to secure the appointment of the best men; secondly, to give a chance to the poor man's son, and, thirdly, to abolish corruption. Let us examine these three points and satisfy ourselves that the present Act does meet these points and that the amending Bill would not. Take the question of the appointment of the best men. Is it seriously contended that appointments have been made by the Local Appointments Commissioners which are not bad? I know men, and I do not want to produce their names in this House, who were appointed as dispensary doctors by the Local Appointments Commissioners and who have not been sober since the day they were appointed.

Mr. HOGAN

The proper thing to do now is to name them.

Dr. HENNESSY

Yes, name them.

Mr. LEMASS

I will not do so. I have no intention. I will tell you another story.

Mr. HOGAN

Do not go away from it now. Give us the names?

Mr. LEMASS

I have no intention of doing so.

Mr. HOGAN

Before the public here you should name them.

General MULCAHY

They should be named now.

Mr. HOGAN

Here in the Dáil.

Mr. LEMASS

I do not intend to do so, but I am quite prepared to supply the names in confidence.

General MULCAHY

I think the Deputy should do it in the Dáil now.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If there is dirty work to be done, let us hear about it.

Mr. LEMASS

I am prepared to supply the names in confidence. I was a prisoner in the Curragh—Hare Park Camp—once and there was a doctor there.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I think the Deputy should confine himself to the subject under discussion.

Mr. LEMASS

This is one example of an appointment.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

By the Appointments Commissioners?

Mr. LEMASS

Yes. There was a doctor there and he used to go around all the huts once a day, accompanied by an officer, and the officer used to carry a bottle under his arm. He was, no doubt, a qualified doctor. I remember he came into the hut in which I was resident at the time, because there was a man lying ill there. The doctor was accompanied by this officer carrying a bottle under his arm. The man who was ill had consumption and he died shortly afterwards. The doctor came to him, felt his pulse, examined his chest, and said to the officer, "Give him a drop out of the bottle, Mick." And do you know what the officer said afterwards?—"God, this bottle must be great; we gave it to a man with a broken leg next door."

Mr. HOGAN

Ah! That is an old chestnut. Come back to the point you made.

Mr. LEMASS

Last week-end I met that doctor, and he is a dispensary doctor, and he was appointed by the Local Appointments Commissioners.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

You are getting away from the drunkenness, I think?

Mr. LEMASS

I am not. I am quite prepared to substantiate everything I said in that respect. Is it seriously contended that every appointment made by the Local Appointments Commissioners was the best and that they made no mistakes whatever?

Mr. HOGAN

Get back to the point.

General MULCAHY

That is not corruption.

Mr. LEMASS

Is it seriously contended that bad appointments have not been made in good faith by the Local Appointments Commissioners?

Mr. HOGAN

Get back to the point now.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy ought to be allowed to continue his speech.

Mr. G. BOLAND

If the names were mentioned we would hear quite a different story from the three gentlemen who are calling for names.

Mr. HOGAN

The names should be mentioned here and now.

Mr. G. BOLAND

We are more careful about slander than the Minister.

Mr. HOGAN

Leave that to me. I am not whining.

Mr. LEMASS

The question is that we want to ensure a high level in the local government service.

General MULCAHY

And then, when you meet a dispensary doctor who is continually drunk, instead of letting some responsible person such as the Minister for Local Government know, it is thrown out as an innuendo in a discussion like this.

Mr. LEMASS

I have no objection to letting you know. I object to letting you know here.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It was often done before.

General MULCAHY

What I object to is having brought up like this, by way of innuendo, a charge against the Local Appointments Commissioners when the Deputy takes no steps to stand up to his responsibilities.

Mr. LEMASS

I am not charging the Local Appointments Commissioners with appointing doctors whom they knew to be constantly intoxicated. I say that the system under which local appointments are made is just as liable to error as the old system was. That is the point I am trying to bring out. I want to say that we want to get a system that would ensure a high level of ability in local services, and I say that the present system has not shown that it can give us that high level of ability. It has not shown that the general level of ability amongst the people appointed by it was any better than the general level of the people appointed under the old system.

Dr. HENNESSY

That is not a fact in the case of medical appointments.

Mr. LEMASS

I disagree with Deputy Hennessy, and I think my word in that respect is going to be as good as his, because my word is substantiated by the general opinion of people that I consulted throughout the country.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

I do not think Deputy Lemass has proved anything against the doctor by giving the statement of the man who was going around with him, who evidently made it as a joke. I really do not think that that should be produced against the ability of the doctor—to say that a joke was made by a man who was carrying the bottle around.

Mr. LEMASS

I do not want to repeat the story, but the doctor examined this man, gave him a drop out of the bottle, left him there, and the man was dead a few weeks after. I want to get back to the Local Appointments Commissioners. We were assured that the present system provides for the appointment of the best men. I say it has not done so. I say that it can undoubtedly make good appointments, and I have no doubt that good appointments have been made. But I have no doubt that bad appointments have been made exactly as under the old system and exactly, probably, as they would be under the system contemplated by this Bill. If that system was in operation good appointments would be made and bad appointments would be made. It is incorrect to say that the general level in one case will be good and in the other case bad. There will be good and bad in both cases. We have to provide some system that will prevent people who are absolutely inefficient being appointed, and to ensure that appointments will be made in the best possible way. We are told that the present system provides for the poor man's son. We have had bucketfuls of drivel from many Deputies about the poor man's son.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

It came from your side.

Mr. LEMASS

I heard it from Deputy Byrne the same as everyone else. Deputies put their hands on their hearts and talked about the poor man's son.

Mr. ANTHONY

Neither one nor the other of you give a jot about the poor man's son. Be honest about it.

Mr. LEMASS

Neither does Deputy Anthony. I maintain that the old system was abolished and the present system instituted without a single thought for the poor man's son, but with considerable thought for the sons of influential supporters of Cumann na nGaedheal. I would like to ask: Is there a single doctor, discharged from the Army in recent years, who applied for a dispensary, who was not elected?

Dr. HENNESSY

Yes.

General MULCAHY

I am sure you would find plenty if you put an advertisement in the papers.

Mr. J. WOLFE

I can tell you of one or two.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

You do not get far with that argument.

Mr. LEMASS

I think we can leave out of consideration the question of the poor man's son. It is not a serious argument in this debate.

Mr. COBURN

Indeed, it is not.

Mr. LEMASS

When Deputy Hennessy, Deputy Byrne, Deputy Wolfe and a few other Deputies were prating about the poor man's son, they were pulling the legs of their constituents, but they were not pulling the legs of Deputies.

Dr. HENNESSY

Will you quote for me where I mentioned the poor man's son?

Mr. LEMASS

If you did not mention him, I withdraw the statement. I will take the Deputy's word that he is not interested in the poor man's son.

Dr. HENNESSY

That is another little quibble.

Mr. LEMASS

The third and important point stressed in the debate is that the present system has provided for the abolition of corruption. Many definitions of corruption are possible. Probably the least objectionable form of corruption is bribery. I am not going to give a lecture on morals. Corruption of any kind is objectionable, but I maintain that the system of corruption which undoubtedly prevailed under the old conditions was much less objectionable than the system of corruption which could prevail under the present conditions. Whether or not there is corruption under the present system I cannot prove. I believe as I said that influences other than the right influences are taken into consideration when appointments are made, but the Minister for Finance, at any rate, and, I think, the Minister for Local Government, were very anxious to make it known to everyone concerned that no proposal could be entertained which would result in the casting of a single ray of light on the transactions of the Local Appointments Commissioners or of any of the appointments made by them.

General MULCAHY

Of course, that is not a fact.

Mr. LEMASS

Is it not so that the main argument that the Minister for Finance advanced against the amendment standing in the name of the Labour Party was that they could not agree to any proposal which would give a Committee of the Dáil power to send for the papers concerning these appointments?

General MULCAHY

No, and so much so that Deputy O'Connell appreciates the fact with regard to certain of the documents, that he did not contemplate that these documents would be produced.

Mr. LEMASS

It is quite clear the Government is not prepared to have what Deputy Boland called a "show down."

General MULCAHY

I do not know what a "show down" might be.

Mr. LEMASS

In any case the Minister's assurance in this matter is based on the knowledge he obviously possesses, that there has been no leakage and that consequently Deputies on this side are not able to produce proof.

General MULCAHY

Deputy de Valera told us several times that details were to be produced.

Mr. LEMASS

We know of appointments that were made, we know the people who were candidates for the posts concerned, and we know from our own knowledge that candidates have been rejected who were better qualified than these people.

Dr. HENNESSY

Can you name them?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Give us the corruption.

Mr. G. BOLAND

You have it too well sealed up.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

But we were promised that.

Dr. HENNESSY

If I might intervene for a moment I would ask Deputy Lemass to name the case of one medical appointment where a better man was turned down. Name it now.

Mr. HOGAN (Minister)

Come on now. The back door should be closed sometime.

Mr. J.T. WOLFE

There was a case of one of his colleagues from Kerry.

Mr. LEMASS

I am in this difficulty, that if I were to give information which I possess in some of these cases I would be breaking confidence. Every Deputy on these benches knows—and I am sure every Deputy on the benches opposite, if they were honest—would admit that they know that appointments have been made, one within the last couple of weeks——

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If Deputy Lemass will not give us the name will Deputy Fahy give it to us?

The PRESIDENT

Will the Deputy give it to me in confidence?

Mr. LEMASS

I am going to give so much detailed information in confidence that it will take me a lot of time. I will. The arguments which have been advanced in favour of the present system all break down under examination. It does not always ensure the appointment of the best man; it does not ensure preferential treatment for the poor man's son that we hear so much about; it does not secure the abolition of corruption. Now, what this Bill proposes to do is this: The Bill proposes to ensure that for every position only a qualified man can be appointed. It does not leave any loophole by which unqualified persons can be appointed.

Dr. HENNESSY

There is a great difference in qualified men.

Mr. LEMASS

Undoubtedly. The doctor I referred to at the Curragh Camp was a qualified man.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Keep away from him.

Dr. RYAN

It is easy to find him.

Mr. LEMASS

It is desirable, under any system for the making of Local Government appointments, that no such loopholes should exist. We provide in the Bill that the local authorities can ask the Civil Service Commissioners, as we suggest, either for the name of one candidate only or for a panel of not less than three, and the only names that would be sent down by the Civil Service Commissioners to the local authorities would be the names of qualified persons. Therefore, no matter which of them was appointed, it would be a qualified person, a person whom the Civil Service Commissioners considered to be well qualified for the post.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There is no "well" in it.

Dr. HENNESSY

That was always the case.

Mr. LEMASS

No, it was not always the case. I object to that; that statement is not correct.

Dr. HENNESSY

Could a person be appointed if he was not qualified? You are playing with words.

Mr. J.T. WOLFE

He could not be a candidate.

Mr. LEMASS

Deputy Hennessy is talking about doctors only. I am talking about all appointments. Under the old system there was a ratification of the appointment by the local authority after the appointment had been made, and that system did not work well. We suggest that the ratification should come before the appointment is made, and that system would work better. The Bill also provides that the appointment would be made in the light of day, that the appointment would not be made behind closed doors in Dublin, but in the light of day, at a public meeting of a public body, and made by the body that has got to foot the bill. When we consider, therefore, the present system, the old system, and the system suggested in this Bill, and examine them critically, we will see that this Bill does, in fact, provide for a system that is better than either of the other two. It does ensure that qualified persons would be appointed; it does ensure that the appointment will be made publicly, and that anything that may be suggestive of corruption in the appointment can be and will be examined by the rate-payers of the locality. It does provide that the appointment will be made by the members of the local body, who are the representatives of the people who pay the bill. Again I say that no system that you can devise will be absolutely knave proof, and that corruption will not be possible, that no system you can provide will ensure that the best man will always be appointed. But I say that the system suggested by this Bill will ensure that good men will be appointed, and that they will be appointed in the best way, and, therefore, I hope that the Dáil will pass the Bill.

Mr. ANTHONY

I rise to oppose the Bill and to support Deputy O'Connell's amendment. In my view, the speakers in favour of the Bill, as well as many of those who spoke against the amendment, provided the best argument for an inquiry before this Bill should become an Act, especially the speech delivered by Deputy Lemass. We have heard a good deal about the best man being evolved by an examination, whether under the old system or the new, but in that respect I would ask this question: Is there any human institution that we know of that can always secure, either by a competitive examination or by any other class of examination, that the best man does always win? My experience, both of competitive examinations and of others, is that the best man does not always win.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

How could Deputy Anthony prove that in the case of competitive examinations?

Mr. ANTHONY

Because there is, as the Deputy must know, a very great and a very marked difference of opinion as to whether competitive examinations always produce the best man. Deputy Lemass made what I presume he must have considered a very strong point when he suggested that the right type of man will not go up for county council elections because it is said, in effect, to them that they are potentially corrupt, inasmuch as the right to make appointments is taken from them. Does Deputy Lemass suggest equally that Deputies in this House are also corrupt because of the fact that they have not the right to make appointments, for instance, to the Civil Service?

Mr. LEMASS

We had the right. I suggest to Deputy Anthony that this House devised a system for the appointment of members of the Civil Service that took that immediate power out of the hands of Deputies, but this House did that itself; members of local government boards did not decide to appoint the Local Appointments Commissioners.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Answer his question.

Mr. LEMASS

That is the answer to it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is not the answer to it.

Mr. LEMASS

The answer is that whatever system of appointment exists does so because this House wished it to exist.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputy Lemass has said that people will not go up for elections to local authorities because they have patronage taken out of their hands, and that they have it taken out of their hands because they are corrupt. Deputy Anthony wants to know positively, when the power of appointment has been taken out of the hands of Dáil Deputies, if a good class of people go forward for election as Deputies they are considered to be corrupt.

Dr. RYAN

That is a different point altogether.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is the point he put.

Mr. ANTHONY

Take the case of the appointment of a secretary to the Minister for Finance. Would the Civil Service Commissioners send up three names for the Dáil to select one? These things have been operating in my mind during the time I was listening to some of the speeches. The question arises as to how we are to judge of the merits, or demerits, of the old system as compared with the new. Speaking for myself, I find myself in entire agreement with the principle underlying the setting up of the Local Appointments Commissioners, and I have already said that there is a case for an inquiry. That has been borne out by the speeches delivered for the Bill and against the amendment. Deputy Boland said something about the spoils to the victors. I have very vivid recollections of that particular slogan, as used in the city of Cork during the regime of Deputy Boland's own Party there—the spoils to the victors. In each case they went to the victors. That is my experience. That is why I say that in principle I agree with the Act, though I do suggest that there is a case for inquiry, and I commend that to the consideration of the House. I am not altogether in agreement with many of the Deputies who spoke about corruption in public boards. There may have been corruption here and there throughout the country, but perhaps a little less objectionable term to use would be nepotism. Undoubtedly there was a good deal of that, and the Local Appointments Commission has certainly done some service in that particular regard. It has done one other thing: it has relieved members of public boards of the annoyance of canvassing. I am quite sure that members of public boards will agree with me that one of their greatest embarrassments was to be canvassed by a number of applicants for positions. I have in my mind's eye at the moment the case of a very cultured lady who occupies a very high position in the National University.

She had occasion to wait on me in connection with a very small appointment. It was really only a part-time appointment, and was at a time when the party for whom Deputy Lemass speaks had considerable power by virtue of its numbers on that Board. I was going to vote for the best-qualified candidate, the one who had the best degrees coupled with a certain amount of experience. Members of the party for whom Deputy Lemass speaks turned down that candidate in favour of a less qualified person. Deputy Ward, I think, spoke of some medical appointments in his own district that had been made. I do not want to go into that. I do not want to get all the saw-bones in Ireland up against me in connection with this matter, but I know that, so far as Cork city and county are concerned, they have succeeded in most cases at any rate in getting the best qualified men. I do not want to enter into that further, but the fact is that under no system that human ingenuity can devise can you ensure that you will always get the best men. The Minister for Local Government, speaking in this debate some days ago, took exception to the use of the word "corruption" by, I think, Deputy Ward, and asked the Deputy to specify cases of corruption. I do not want to have a bit each way on the two great parties, but I would like to see the Cumann na nGaedheal Party a little more consistent in that regard, particularly the Minister for Local Government. The Minister waxed quite indignant with Deputy Ward when the Deputy suggested that there was corruption, and asked the Deputy for specific cases of corruption in Government departments. The Minister resented the use of such a word. Why is it that his conscience smites him when the word is used in this connection? On other occasions he has heard the word used in connection with the dissolution of the old Cork Corporation, against whom not a whittle of corruption was proved, and we have not heard from the Minister for Local Government any objection to the use of the word "corruption" there! I would like if the Minister would be a little more consistent in that regard at any rate. I throw out this challenge to the Minister—I know he would hardly have the hardihood to say it on any public platform in the city of Cork—and not alone to the Minister, but also to some of the Cork Deputies who may be listening to me, to state whether there was corruption in the old Cork Corporation or not. I would like to point out to some of these purists in public life, the people who came in to purify the politics of Cork, as, of course, they have attempted to purify politics in public life in other parts of Ireland, that some of them at any rate were instrumental in getting the old Cork Corporation dissolved.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I think the Deputy might move the adjournment of the debate on that.

Mr. ANTHONY

I move accordingly.

Debate adjourned.