Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jun 1928

Vol. 24 No. 7

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - 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. O'HANLON

Before addressing myself to this Bill, let me say it was refreshing to have the few exchanges of courtesies that took place between the President and the leader of the Opposition. I hope that such nice exchanges will characterise our debates in the next few weeks. Having said so much, I was rather struck by the fact that this particular Bill has been sandwiched in as a kind of comic interlude between the heavy scenes on the question of the powers of the people. This Bill does not appear to have very much chance of success. It got rather a bad reception all round, first of all from the manner in which it was drafted and secondly in its contents. I find that I cannot compliment the draftsman or those who inspired the Bill. On the question of the drafting of the Bill, my sympathies are entirely with Deputy de Valera and those on his side of the House, because it is extremely hard for a private member not in the Government Party to produce a Bill which, in all respects, will be in keeping with what should be put before the House. We spent a great many days and weeks discussing the power of the people and are still doing it on these Constitution Amendment Bills.

One of the worst measures that ever was introduced to take power from the people was the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Bill, 1926. Listening to the debate on this question, it reminded me of something that happened in another House just thirty years ago. There was a measure being discussed at that time in the British House of Commons which had for its purpose the abolition of one of the most corrupt systems of local government that ever was known in this or any other country. I refer to the old Grand Jury system which was undemocratic and corrupt from start to finish. If there was one Act which the British Government gave us that conferred the benefit of democratic control on the people of this country, it was the Local Government Act of 1898.

Listening to the debate on this Bill, if one closed one's eyes, one would think he was back thirty years ago. It is an extraordinary thing, in an assembly of Irishmen, conducting Irish affairs, to hear the libels on the Irish people that were perpetrated in this House, as to the manner in which they dealt with local government—that our public bodies are corrupt from start to finish, and unfitted for the duties of appointing a porter, that they are unfitted to deal with a tender for a bar of soap. That is the condition that we find our country in now after five or six years of self-government. Nothing as bad as these arguments was used thirty years ago by those who wished to frustrate the efforts of the British Parliament when they were giving Ireland a Local Government Act. I have heard people dealing with other measures talk about getting freedom to obtain freedom. The greatest act of freedom to obtain freedom that this country got was the Local Government Act. Were it not for that Local Government Act we would not be sitting here. It gave the people freedom to obtain freedom. But the people in this country to-day are being told that they are unfitted for freedom and unfitted for local administration. When this Local Government Act was first passed it was passed with a two-edged idea. Some people thought that with the granting of local government there would be no such thing as a further effort to secure self-government, and others thought, and thought wrongly, that if local government was given to Ireland the Irish people would make a mess of it in a very short time. What are the facts? Up to 1918 local government in Ireland was an example to the world of purity in public administration. I defy contradiction of that. The administration of local government was pure. What corrupted the purity of local administration? We must face facts, and when anybody brands the people of Ireland as corrupt we must exactly understand what the justification is for such a stigma being put upon them. I say that the people who corrupted the Irish people are in this House—the leader of the Opposition and the President of the State. There have been a few years of local government in this country when corruption did get in. Why did it get in? Because men were elected or selected—they dare not go forward for election. Men were selected to act on local boards not because of their administrative capacity, but because they had none. They were deliberately put in to defy authority because they were unfitted for administration, and it was a very excellent weapon. Let me compliment both the Leader of the Opposition and the President on the manner in which that weapon was used, but I cannot compliment either of them on the aftermath or reaction that was bound to come from using men to defy authority, and on their saying, when they have got into office, that this country is unfitted for local government. It is corrupt because they put in office men who were bound to bring the country to corruption. They brand every person in the nation as corrupt because of that system they themselves inaugurated.

We do not want the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Bill in the Free State, nor do we want an amending Bill. What we do want is a Bill that will enable us to trust the people, a Bill that will enable those who are good administrators to come forward. At the moment they will not come forward because of the fear of being branded as corrupt. If Deputy de Valera wished to do justice to the people he would not have brought in an amending Bill. There is not a provision in the Bill which does not presuppose that this country is corrupt from start to finish. He agrees with the Commission, and he agrees that the people are not fit to make appointments. Why are they not fit to make appointments? I heard the most ridiculous arguments in this House as to the corruption of public bodies. Deputy Dr. Hennessy said that a man is corrupt because he voted for a doctor who was after getting his diploma from the Royal College of Surgeons, the National University or Trinity College. If he voted for a man who had been given a diploma to practise as a doctor he was corrupt. He went so far as to suggest that no man is fitted for a position as medical officer in this country who has not done a post-graduate course. In other words, the diplomas which are given by the College of Surgeons, the National University and Trinity College do not fit men for public appointments. To perpetrate a bull, no man should be allowed to graduate unless he has done a post-graduate course. That is about the size of it so far as public appointments are concerned. Deputy Wolfe is one of the awful examples that we have in this House of corruption.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy Jasper Wolfe.

Mr. O'HANLON

Thanks for the correction. Deputy Jasper Wolfe has found himself to be corrupt in two capacities. He was corrupt, first of all, on going in as a member of a public board. When he had exhausted all the resources of bribery and corruption on the public boards he thought it better to take a position under them. In both capacities he found himself corrupt.

Mr. WOLFE

Hear, hear!

Mr. O'HANLON

I am glad you like it. I do not want to labour this question too much. I would suggest that local bodies should not be branded as being corrupt because they may have had on occasions voted in a man not because he was not qualified but because he might by some chance have a thirty-first cousin in the neighbourhood. That is not a corrupt act. I think if the Government want to deal with this question as it ought to be dealt with, what they should do is to go back to local government as we had it. I am not saying one word about local government at the moment, but we should have it back as we had it before the amalgamation of unions and before the other things that were done on a half sheet of paper—amalgamation schemes run through without any consideration, as a result of which local government is in chaos.

I believe there is safety in numbers and what is really wrong in the change in local government and what gives colour to the suggestion of corruption is that there are too few members on our local boards. It is an extraordinary fact—many people do not know it—that there is only one local board elected by the people—the county council. The membership of the county council varies from 28 to 32. Other important local boards are manned from the county council and are not elected. The members of the board of health are not elected as members of that board. They are nominated by the county councils. In the past, they were nominated, in most cases, on political issues. Nearly every county council which nominated a board of health divided itself into political sections and nominated certain politicians to act. So far as local administration is concerned, that is a misnomer, because members of a board of health, ten in number, dealing with a large county, cannot be in touch with the people. Consequently it is not local administration.

Getting back to the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Bill, I do not for a moment imagine that simply because a civil servant is a civil servant he goes around with a halo. I do not believe that civil servants are all saints. I do not believe they are different from any of the rest of us. They are just as human as any of us, and, if that be so, why should a civil servant, or three civil servants, be so pure as to be above corruption? We have heard that men elected by the people are supposed to be corrupt. I cannot understand that argument. If we bring it down to ourselves, we must be a very corrupt body. We are elected on a manhood franchise—the broadest franchise in the world. We are inferior, in point of election, to those who will be elected on the local boards in a week or two. They will be elected on a much more restricted franchise—probably only a 60 per cent. franchise. They will be elected by ratepayers and householders only, and ratepayers and householders are branded by this House as the only people who cannot elect honest representatives. We, ourselves, are elected by people of 21 years of age, and if the local boards are so bad, God help us, because we must be a great deal worse. I hope that in a short time local government will be recast from top to bottom, so that we shall have local government in fact, and not only in name; that local bodies will get power, and if they get power the local people will see that the right men are elected. When there is no power, there are no men going to seek office. If you give the people the power to administer local affairs, if you see their numbers are much greater than they are at present and not so great as they were in the past, you will find there will be no suggestion of corruption and no necessity for a Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Bill. You may safely leave local government to the people, being assured that pure administration will follow.

Mr. LITTLE

I must congratulate Deputy O'Hanlon that although he can boast he came into this House without getting any Republican votes, on the question of local government, at least, he is as sound as any Republican. I cannot say the same about Deputy Wolfe, either in regard to the Republican support he got before he came into the House or what he did after he came in. But as he holds himself forth as an awful example of corruption, we can leave him there. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health kept constantly asking for cases of corruption. That, I submit, so far as legislation is concerned, is not the most essential thing.

General MULCAHY

Why were we promised them?

Mr. DE VALERA

Why do you not tell the truth?

Mr. LITTLE

The most essential thing is to prove that the system is defective and requires amendment. I am strongly in favour of local government and of throwing responsibility back upon the people, even in spite of their committing certain sins from time to time, and making certain grave errors. I think the institutions of democracy are such that they must educate people in the long run, and that it is only by having such institutions and by exercising the people's judgment, from time to time, that they are going to perfect their methods and adjust themselves to governing themselves properly. By the way, one of the advantages of democratic government is that it magnifies the defects. If there is corruption there is an outcry, and immediately society remedies itself. It is only the autocrats and people who wish, for the purpose of political power, to rob the people of their power, who desire to magnify those defects. That is what happens under the Local Government measure to which Deputy O'Hanlon referred and which he condemned very properly.

I was on the Dublin County Council for some time, and I was also a representative of the Council on the Council of University College, Dublin. The latter body included a number of highly educated men. I have nothing to say against either body, but I must frankly admit that if I went out of my way I could criticise the conduct of both bodies in the matter of appointments. Yet, in spite of their sins, I have the same regard for those members who were on the County Council with me as for those who were on the governing body of University College with me. And I say that any radical remedy that would be required for one would be equally required for the other. Once you throw responsibility upon bodies like that, you must simply allow for a certain amount of error in human nature. It is impossible to reform everything, as Edmund Burke said a long time ago. And people who go out for stern morality are often to be greatly suspected. I do not propose to detain the House very long, because the allegation has been made by members of this House that there is an attempt to obstruct in Private Members' time. When Deputy O'Kelly spoke here the other day he spoke from the fullness of his experience of local government.

I think his condemnation of the attitude of the Minister for Local Government in his "stern morality," has been simply overwhelming to an impartially-minded person. There is a particular example I want to take to show the defectiveness of the present system.

The Appointments Commissioners appointed a certain person as Borough Surveyor in the County Waterford. The Corporation of Waterford objected very strongly, and said very strong things, which were reported in the Press. Subsequently, a paper in Waterford, called the "Waterford Standard," took up the matter and published a letter from one of those who had been competitors for the position. On the strength of that letter, an action for criminal libel was taken by the Commissioners against the Editor of the "Waterford Standard." That action was tried in Dublin, and the result of it was that the case was dismissed with costs. In other words, what was said was not considered to be a libel in any sense. Now, an interesting thing occurred in the course of cross-examination. Mr. O'Hegarty, Commissioner, was being examined. I am not saying a word of criticism of an individual who cannot defend himself; that, I understand, is the rule. I am merely quoting. "Mr. O'Hegarty produced and handed to the Judge for inspection the report of the examiners giving the recommendation in respect of the various candidates."

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Will the Deputy give the name of the paper?

Mr. LITTLE

The "Waterford Standard" of May 12th. When the Judge was persuing this he made this comment:—

The Judge: What is the meaning of the words "not on the black list" written on this report opposite the name of Mr. Sheedy?

Mr. O'Hegarty: That means, my Lord, that there was no misdemeanour known against him.

In the course of the cross-examination it came out that there were five other names on that list. Apparently that comment was not against the other names. Are we to assume that there was a misdemeanour against the other persons?

Mr. J. WOLFE

Who was first on the list? Quote it properly.

Mr. LITTLE

The name sent down to the Corporation was Mr. Sheehy.

Mr. J. WOLFE

Who was first on the list?

Mr. LITTLE

I do not understand this question.

Mr. HOGAN (Minister)

You understand it well.

Mr. LITTLE

I put it this way. I believe that the person I happened to have regard for on that list was first on it.

Mr. J. WOLFE

Yes.

Mr. LITTLE

And that name was first on the list.

Mr. J. WOLFE

He was a Cork man.

Mr. LITTLE

But because he happened to be connected by family associations only with a prominent Republican family in the city of Waterford, apparently his name was on the black list. It is nonsense to contend that it had any reference to civil misdemeanours in the ordinary sense of the word. It must have been political misdemeanour that was against the other man, and that the name of this man, because of his political associations, was the only name sent down. It came out in the course of the cross-examination in this case:

"In further reply to counsel the defendant said that the Corporation thought that more than one name should be sent down, and that they should have some discretion in making the appointments. They asked for a list of further names."

It is exactly to meet that that this Bill is introduced. It may be contended after all, that what I have said is a trifle, but it must be admitted by everyone that you are going to remove every element of suspicion—I will not say we are going to give an instrument which checks political corruption, or the use of political power at headquarters, if you like—by the sending down of a panel. If you send down a panel and send down the qualifications you are allowing the Corporation in this case to exercise full discretion within limits, and they have all the information before them as to the qualification of the individuals. I think that is the strongest case. My case is this, that first of all there is at least a very strong indication here of political corruption, and even if there is not, there is an element of suspicion introduced to public life which should be eliminated, and which can be eliminated by this particular Bill.

Mr. DAVIN

Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly, when supporting the Bill on last Friday afternoon, made certain statements that I think it is my duty to correct. In the first place he said:

"I read the speeches that were delivered while this Act was under discussion, and I got the impression that there was prevalent in this House on all sides an opinion that the public life of Ireland was full of corruption. I repudiate that suggestion. I do not think it should have been suggested by any Party, whatever Parties they might be, that the public men of Ireland are corrupt, dishonest and inefficient."

That is a suggestion that ought not to go out, and if Deputy O'Kelly had taken the trouble to read again the speeches delivered on the Second Reading debate in connection with the original Bill he would have found out that he had not read the speeches as carefully as he thought he had read them. If he had looked up the discussion on the Second Reading Stage he would have found that Deputies like Deputy Gorey and Deputies in this Party, who were here at the time, took strong exception to any insinuations of that kind from the Government Benches or from the Minister who was then in charge of the Bill. The Minister responsible at the time is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. If Deputy O'Kelly, for instance, read Deputy Gorey's speech he would have found that Deputy Gorey and all the members of his Party at the time—of course the Party is now gone and is swallowed up by the Cumann na nGaedheal Party— made some of the most violent speeches that were made during the debate on the Second Reading of the original Bill against that suggestion. So much for that portion of Deputy O'Kelly's statement.

I now come to another part of Deputy O'Kelly's speech. He stated that

"If the Committee suggested by Deputy O'Connell was agreed to, an arrangement might be made by which it could be secured that all Parties would be represented on the Local Appointments Commission. If that were so, then, as long as we had our representative there, we would have to be satisfied always. We have not a representative there."

Deputy O'Kelly apparently is ignorant of the fact that the Local Appointments Commission consists of three civil servants and does not consist of the representatives of any political party. Deputy de Valera in his own Bill accepts the principle of the original Act, namely, that the Civil Service Commissioners should be given power to appoint a Selection Board which would make certain appointments in connection with the local authorities. As far as I know Deputy O'Connell's mind he had no idea that any Committee that was set up under the terms of the amendment would mean the removal of the existing commissioners, and would lead to the setting up of a body consisting purely and simply of the representatives of political parties. I suggest that any suggestion that the Appointments Commissioners should consist of the nominees of political parties would lead to a worse state of affairs than the existing state of affairs. As far as I am personally concerned I would not in any circumstances vote for the setting up of Appointments Commissioners, consisting of nominees of existing parties, because I do not believe there would be agreement about any appointment, no matter what the nature of the appointment might be. So far as I am concerned when asked to express my opinion by voting on the original Bill, I made up my mind that if the local authorities required the best people, and particularly if they were anxious to secure the ablest medical, professional or technical men to do the work required to be done by local authorities, the men to select the most efficient men would be the heads of the professional and technical organisations in this country. For instance, I cannot accept the view, no matter whom it might be put forward by, that an ordinary county councillor in the country, no matter to what party he belonged and no matter how well educated he might be, would be a better judge of the qualifications of a medical man than the heads of the medical profession in this country. If the members of the medical profession put at the head of the profession, for instance, a man like Deputy Sir James Craig, I would certainly say that the medical profession should be quite satisfied to leave in his hands, or in the hands of any man like him, the decision, as between two or three men, with regard to which of them was best suited for a particular appointment.

The whole charge that has been made by the people responsible for the introduction of this Bill against the administration of the original Act is that supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party are not getting a fair deal in the appointments that have been made by the Appointments Commissioners. That is the sum and substance of all the speeches which I have listened to from the Fianna Fáil side on this Bill. If that is the position, I suggest to the Fianna Fáil Party, and to the Government Party as well, that the Commission which Deputy O'Connell proposes in his amendment should be set up, so that the Fianna Fáil Party, or those who have made complaint to that Party in regard to the administration of the Act, should get an opportunity before a Select Committee of proving that charge. I do not think it is right or proper that the House as a whole should be asked to go into these charges. The Minister for Local Government has been continuously interrupting during this debate by asking that the charge of corruption be justified. I say that the Select Committee is the place to justify these charges, and that the people who have made the complaints should be allowed to go before that Committee and justify them, if they can do so.

So far as local authorities are concerned, I see no differences whatsoever between the representatives of Fianna Fáil and of Cumann na nGaedheal in regard to the attitude adopted by them as members of local authorities in the case of appointments that have been made, at least in my area. I have before me a case I got some time ago, where a minor appointment was being made by the Leix County Council in my constituency. The County Council asked the Local Government Department to lay down regulations, with regard to subjects and other matters, for an examination. This examination was held under the supervision of a representative of the Department. Eventually the result was announced, that so-and-so was No. 1, and giving the names of 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on. A young man who passed the matriculation examination was placed first, and rightly so; he took a very high percentage of marks in Irish as well as in other subjects. What happened? An individual who was placed fifth on the list was elected by the County Council against this young man who obtained first place, and representatives of the Fianna Fáil Party on the Leix County Council, as well as representatives of Cumann na nGaedheal and other Parties, voted for No. 5 instead of for No. 1. I mention that to show that if the Fianna Fáil Party was in power tomorrow and if they had a Civil Service Selection Board, probably the same charge would be made by the official Opposition against them as these charges that they are now making against the Government.

General MULCAHY

Might I intervene? In a case like that, would not that appointment of No. 5 have been made against the express and very much urged desire of the Local Government Department that No. 1 should be appointed?

Mr. DAVIN

I quite admit that. I believe that the local pull, which was a tremendous pull in this case, carried weight, against even the terrible pressure, without any power behind it, of the Local Government Department.

Dr. O'DOWD

Might I ask if the Minister has not power to sanction or not to sanction?

General MULCAHY

The Minister has power of sanctioning or non-sanctioning, but in the case of a qualifying examination such as that, he has no power to force the local body to appoint a particular person, and in so far as withholding sanction is concerned, where it has been useful in making them appoint the first person in a case like that, sanction has been withheld. But there is a point in connection with appointments made in this particular way beyond which the Minister has no power and has to give in to the local authority.

Mr. DAVIN

In this case one thing happened which the Local Government Department might have put right. In the usual method of examination the papers are handed out with numbers on them, but strange to say, in this case the names and addresses of the candidates were allowed to appear, so that the examiner, when he got the papers—and I believe the examiner in this case was teaching the successful candidate Irish—of course, knew who his friend was. The Local Government Department might have put things right, as far as that was concerned at any rate.

General MULCAHY

Might it be again made plain that the experience of the Department in the matter of qualifying examinations has been such that the Department has now ceased to hold such qualifying examinations, and where a local body requires an examination like this to be held they have to make their own arrangements. The experience of the Local Government Department has been such that they completely washed their hands of these examinations.

Mr. DAVIN

Yes, but of course a good deal has been said in this debate about the poor man's son. This was not the case of a poor man's son against a poor man's daughter. It was the case of the person with the biggest pull. I do not make the charge that there was bribery. Of course, there appears to be a misunderstanding as to what is the meaning of the word "corruption!" The point I want to make is that the Fianna Fáil representatives were pulled as well as the Cumann na nGaedheal representatives.

Mr. HOGAN (Minister)

It could not happen.

Mr. DAVIN

It certainly happened, in this case at any rate, and the poor man's son would have very little chance between the two of them. Deputy de Valera, when I was first speaking, appeared to deny that Deputy O'Kelly and his supporters had made the charge that their political supporters were being prejudiced by reason of the administration of this Act. Deputy O'Kelly used the words "the Republicans have not got a fair do." The word "Republican" even is not properly understood by me in this matter, so that I do not know exactly on whose behalf he makes that charge. I took particular note of the words that Deputy O'Kelly used, because I recollect that I heard him delivering that speech, which lasted from twenty minutes past twelve until two o'clock, and that he had not carefully studied all the speeches on the original Act, and he was not even well acquainted with the contents of the Bill which he was himself supporting.

I am only concerned with one thing in this particular case, and that is this: What is the best way of getting for the local authorities, or the ratepayers, the most efficient officials to administer the affairs of the local authorities? It all boils down to this, as far as I am concerned: The principal officials of local authorities consist, as far as I know, of men who have, or should have, professional or technical qualifications. Professional and technical men in this country, including the legal side, have very powerful organisations, much more powerful when they act on behalf of their professions than any trade union. They have officers whom they elect to certain positions from year to year. I contend, and nobody is going to change my mind on this matter, that the heads of the professional and technical organisations of this country are far better judges of the ability and the qualifications of their own members than any member of a county council that I know of. For that reason I am not going to vote for or support any amendment to the original Act which would deny these men the right to make these appointments in the interests of the ratepayers. I think the Appointments Commissioners need certainly not be given the power to make every appointment. However, I quoted one case that I know of, the case of a minor appointment, where the local pull went against merit and ability, and so far as I am concerned I am not prepared, as I say, to accept the charge, unless and until it is proved, that political prejudice is operating in the administration of the Act. If it is, and if that charge is being made, there is no better way of dealing with it than by asking the people who are bringing in this amending Bill to support the amendment moved by Deputy O'Connell, to have a Select Committee set up and to bring before it the people who believe these charges and who believe they can justify them, to call for papers, persons and records from the Commissioners there and then, and only by this means justify the charges that have been made, thereby making a case for the amending Bill.

Mr. HOGAN (Minister)

I have no interest whatever in this Bill. I believe that this is a thoroughly dishonest Bill, and the people responsible for it know it. But I have a certain interest in the speeches that were made. I do not agree with Deputy Davin that the Minister for Local Government was not entitled to ask for specific charges of corruption. I would agree with him but for certain circumstances. I do think if a committee is set up that that is the place to bring forward charges in regard to corruption. But what Deputy Davin has forgotten is that Deputy de Valera, in the most specific way, stated that there was corruption and that certain members of his party would give specific examples of it. In the most specific way he stated that.

Mr. DE VALERA

You cannot tell the truth either.

Mr. HOGAN

Do not get excited. I will tell the truth. Deputy de Valera said:—

The talk about corruption which formerly was fairly frequent with respect to local bodies is now turned on to the Local Appointments Commissioners.

What does that mean? Of course, it is hard to know what Deputy de Valera means.

Mr. DE VALERA

It is easy to interpret it.

Mr. HOGAN

I will tell you what the English means. To anyone who knows English, to anyone who is not a pettifogger it means a charge of corruption against the Local Appointments Commissioners. I will repeat what Deputy de Valera stated:—

The talk about corruption which formerly was fairly frequent with respect to local bodies is now turned on to the Local Appointments Commissioners.

Deputy de Valera, of course, does not directly charge the Local Appointments Commissioners with corruption but he says that other people do. That is a typical statement. He never makes a direct charge but merely suggests. That has been his technique for the last five years. Here is a specific example. It is very useful. If it is proved, he can father it. If it is not proved, he can deny it. The old story. "I am not going into details." In other words, he was not going to justify what other people said. "I am not going into details as to whether there is any justification for that or not." Of course not. He leaves other people to do that. "Other Deputies will be speaking and they will probably refer to certain appointments." I am willing to admit to the Dáil for what it is worth that he has covered himself fairly well. He is a good judge. This is his technique. He has left a way out, a back door; but he has left it open and to any one who knows anything about plain English and who is not a pettifogger that is an attempt to suggest that the Appointments Commissioners are corrupt, an attempt to indicate that certain Deputies will give examples of corruption.

Dr. RYAN

So they did.

Mr. HOGAN

I am right. The interruptions will now start. The shoe is beginning to pinch. They will not listen. "So they will," said Deputy Dr. Ryan.

Dr. RYAN

So they did, I said.

Mr. HOGAN

I beg your pardon. I accept that. I did not hear you. What is the implication of that? The implication is that Deputy de Valera has been found out, that that statement has been pinned down, and that Deputy de Valera has been justified by the examples given. I accept that situation, and I hope that Deputy de Valera accepts it. I hope we will not hear catch-cries about telling the truth.

Mr. DE VALERA

It is very hard for some people to tell it.

Mr. HOGAN

Extremely. The suggestio falsi is certainly the technique of certain persons and, for charity's sake, I will not mention names. How the Deputy does not get tired of it I do not know. I have been listening to the suggestio falsi for the past five years on every possible subject.

Mr. S. JORDAN

Would it not be as well to mention his name now?

Mr. HOGAN

It is a farce. However, I will go on. We did get examples of the truth of Deputy de Valera's suggestion. What were they? I listened to Deputy Ward, and a more disgusting speech I never listened to in this Dáil from a Republican, from a member of the Party that always have the name of Wolfe Tone on their lips, from people who talk about the Republic and equality, from people who quote Tone and Mitchel. I know the meaning of the word "republic." but I do not believe that there are two Deputies on the opposite benches who know it.

Dr. RYAN

Is there a legal definition of it?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Minister should keep to the Bill.

Mr. HOGAN

I hope you, sir, will give me as much liberty as you gave to the other side. I listened to the speech of Deputy Ward, a member of a party that have been talking Republicanism all their lives. Deputy Little talked about "We, Republicans." What was the whole theme of Deputy Ward's speech? It was that a man should not be appointed because he was not of a certain religion. He did not say it. He never would. It was merely a suggestion. I believe, but I hate to quote it in present company, that somebody said that the word "Catholic,""Protestant," and "Presbyterian" should be forgotten in the one word "Irishman." That is a doctrine to which I give allegiance. We on these benches do give allegiance to it. When it comes to making a temporary point, when there is a temporary advantage to be taken, when it suits the mood of the moment and suits the game which Deputies opposite are playing, it is all forgotten by these Republicans. We will leave it so. It was the speech of a fourth-rate dispensary doctor who had to bring in religion and social pull.

Dr. RYAN

Is the Minister in order?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I think the Minister ought to withdraw.

Mr. HOGAN

I withdraw, and I will go further and say——

Dr. RYAN

Can we speak about two-pence-halfpenny solicitors?

Mr. HOGAN

You can, and it would leave me cold. If you spoke of six-and-eight pence or thirteen-and-four pence it would be more like it. It means absolutely nothing. I never heard of Deputy Ward until I saw him on the benches opposite. I know nothing about him. I do not say that he is a fourth-rate dispensary doctor.

Mr. S. JORDAN

That is right. You said here that you were not a Republican. You could not have met him as you were not in his class.

Mr. HOGAN

Was he always a Republican? I thought he was a member of our Army. I have not said that Deputy Ward is a fourth-rate dispensary doctor, nor do I suggest it, but I say that that is the sort of argument that would be required to justify the appointment of a fourth-rate dispensary doctor. What is the whole point of this Bill? It is to get the third best. To rule out the first and the second best. The principle behind this Bill is the point of view that you would expect from a man who cannot get a job on his merits, and who must push into service in order to get a job as a dispensary doctor or some other position every little influence—religion, family pull, influence with the local bodies, and so on. Any way, I hope that I will never again hear a speech from a professional man like that which I heard from Deputy Dr. Ward on this subject. Of course, Deputy Jasper Wolfe stated the position absolutely correctly, as every Deputy who knows anything about the country realises.

Dr. RYAN

He is a solicitor, too.

Mr. HOGAN

I am not a bit ashamed of being a solicitor. He is a solicitor, and a fairly capable one

Mr. LEMASS

You have changed your opinion.

Mr. HOGAN

No, I never thought otherwise, and I do not think that anyone thought otherwise.

Dr. RYAN

You said otherwise on the road.

Mr. HOGAN

I do not get the point. Deputy Wolfe stated the position quite correctly. Deputy Little said that he was a member of the Dublin County Council, and he never knew of any corruption there. Of course, Deputy Little is a babe in the wood and nobody should take him seriously. "Corruption" is a word with a rather loose meaning. Somebody said that he thought the least objectionable form of corruption was taking money. I do not agree with that.

There are a great many forms of corruption—local pull. It is very hard to resist it. I would find it very hard to resist it if I were a county councillor and there is no Deputy on the opposite side who would not find it hard to resist it if he were only honest enough to admit it. If there are three or four persons, all of whom are qualified, it is very hard not to take into account the family history—the fact that their fathers had given service to the poor of the district, that they are entitled to some consideration, and a hundred and one other circumstances which will suggest themselves to anybody who faces the problem fairly. I would not call that corruption but if you like call it corruption. Call it corruption to allow yourselves to be influenced by the family history of a person, by the fact that he is a decent, hard-working man, even though he has not a tremendous amount of brains or even though his qualifications are not high. Let us call that corruption if you like. I use the word "corruption" because it has been bandied about the Dáil, because it is connoted by the words "undue influence." We know we must all of us in the nature of things be influenced by that. You may take it that a very good case, even an honest case, can be put up for that but that case has not been put up. On the one side we have had the simple proposition that the best man regardless of any considerations should get the job. Of course you may say that that is not happening. You may say that the machinery is not right for doing that but that at any rate is the principle behind our Act—that the best man should get the job.

I could understand Deputies who are serious about this matter saying "Well no, there are cases where you should not give the best man the position, there should be a preference." You could even say that there is a good case for a preference. You could say that you should give a certain preference as against technical qualifications. You could further say that you are giving a preference to a man who has practised with his father for 20 years and that that should be taken into account. That could be argued but what are you doing here? You are simply proposing a Bill which is based on this principle—that the local bodies should be allowed to appoint the third man rather than the first, if they wish to do so. There is no principle behind that Bill. That Bill was introduced with a view to the pending elections. They thought it would be a good thing for the present elections and it was introduced for no other purpose. I remember, though I have not the record and I have not a very long memory, that in 1921—I was actually a T.D. in 1921—the principle was proposed. I was not as ingenuous as other Republican Deputies at that time and I remember that one of the things we looked forward to was the day when we could pass an Act like ours to insure that we would get away from local wire-pulling and appoint the best man, and when we could, so to speak, administer a sort of Spartan discipline in all these matters throughout the country. All that is forgotten in the latter day so-called Republicanism for the sake of getting a temporary advantage. I said that Deputy Little was a baby in this respect but he is learning. He is not as ingenuous as he looks. He started off by telling us that the county councils were honest. He talked of the seven just men and said that the county council of which he was a member was absolutely the last word in altruism and upright administration. That is what he suggested to me.

Mr. LITTLE

I think the Minister is doing an injustice to the Council and to myself.

Mr. HOGAN

That is what he said, and he does not deny it. He started off with that. That is the sort of speech that one would expect from a person who is 15 or 16 years of age and who had been reading "Speeches from the Dock" for the first time, but you would not expect it from a T.D. like Deputy Little, who ought to have seen a little life. He went on from that and he quoted from a report of a case tried recently, and he pointed out that the judge had asked what was the meaning of a black list. He conveniently—and I was watching him carefully at the time to see the point and I could see him— ignored an exclamation from Deputy Wolfe by way of an interruption. Deputy Wolfe said: "Tell the whole story." He did not hear it; he quoted away, and he proceeded to make a point which he knew to be quite wrong. He proceeded to make the point that inquiries were made as to whether this man was on the black list. "We must assume," he said, "that the others were." We must assume because there was no note opposite the names of the others that they all were. In other words, that they were all Republicans —new variety, of course. The Deputy knew perfectly well that that was completely disingenuous, and that was a completely wrong point.

Mr. LITTLE

I think that the Minister is really misinterpreting me.

Mr. HOGAN

What did you suggest?

Mr. LITTLE

I did not suggest that they were all Republicans. I suggested that the name first on the list was associated with a family that was Republican.

Mr. HOGAN

You went on to say that with regard to the others: "We must assume that as there was no note opposite their names they were on the black list." You said that distinctly. Of course he knows it now, because he sees the point. You know that you said it, and you tried to leave the House under the impression that this black list was some black list of so-called Republicans, and that five or six people had been ruled out because they were Republicans. The Deputy did not attempt to define the word Republican —"because they were Republicans," whatever that means. The Deputy knows that the man whose name was sent down was first on the list. There was no point in making inquiries about persons who were not going to be appointed. He knew that perfectly well. He is not as innocent as he looks. Of course it was good enough to justify Deputy de Valera's point about corruption, or his own suggestion about corruption. Deputy Little was put up to suggest that these five persons were found to be Republicans, or something like that, on this black list, and that is the reason that they were not appointed. If there was any doubt—I was looking at the incident—Deputy Jasper Wolfe made it clear. He said: "Quote the whole story. Tell the Dáil that the man opposite whose name the note appears was the man who is getting the position." No, he would not explain that. The Deputy knows that there is no point whatever in making inquiries about persons who are not going to be appointed, but equally, Deputies will know that it is perfectly right, in cases like that, to see whether there was anything against a man in the past—not that he is a Republican—but in the case of a professional man, he may have been dismissed in the past for incompetence of any sort, for negligence or for any sort of misdemeanour. These things should be inquired into. A man may pass an examination and get high marks and be the best man for the position, but the Local Appointments Commissioners would be neglecting their duty if they did not inquire into the past of this man and see whether at any time he had been guilty of a misdemeanour or neglect of duty.

Why did not the Deputy explain that? Simply because Deputy de Valera suggested at the beginning—a suggestion which he has been running from ever since—that there was corruption. That suggestion had to be justified, and that is the sort of justification you have got. I ask the Dáil to throw out the Bill as quickly as possible and give it the fate it deserves.

Mr. BRISCOE

The Minister started off by stating that Deputy de Valera specifically made charges of corruption and promised that specific instances would be quoted. I am waiting to hear whether he can prove that this specific statement was made, and whether these promises were specified.

Mr. HOGAN

Was the Deputy in for the whole of the speech?

Mr. BRISCOE

I was, and I was most entertained from beginning to end.

Mr. HOGAN

I will read it for the sake of hearing Deputy Briscoe explain it away:—

"The talk about corruption, which formerly was fairly frequent with respect to the local bodies, is now turned on to the Local Appointments Commission. I am not going into details as to whether there is any justification for that or not. Other Deputies will be speaking and will probably refer to certain appointments."

Mr. BRISCOE

That is a specific instance?

Mr. HOGAN

Absolutely, as we understand it. Of course, we are not the masters of the English language that Deputy de Valera is.

Dr. O'DOWD

The Minister for Agriculture said that this Bill was intended to get third-rate or fourth-rate dispensary doctors appointed. That was, in effect, the meaning of the Bill, he said. When a dispensary appointment is vacant there is no shortage of applications. If thirty or forty qualified doctors apply for a position and three names are sent down, I do not think the Minister can say that a third or fourth-rate doctor can be appointed. The Selection Boards working under the Appointments Commissioners have never told us what is their standard of marking. Deputy Sir James Craig said that there should be some definite standard of marking. Take, for instance, the case of medical men qualified, one in the National University, one in Trinity College, and one in the College of Surgeons. What we want to know is, if the qualifications of the College of Surgeons, the qualifications of the National University, and the qualifications of Trinity College are treated on the same basis by the Selection Boards? We also want to know what marks are given to the D.P.H., and what marks to other degrees, such as B.A. or B.Sc. If there are marks for a B.A. degree in philosophy and ethics, what value is such a degree to a man who has to go to the country to a dispensary practice? If marks are given for the B.A., would not, say, the diploma of a College of Irish be equally entitled to be recognised? It would show educational training in languages equal to that shown by the B.A. in modern languages or ethics or philosophy. The Minister for Finance said:—

"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 that would improve their chances of appointment."

If a post-graduate course for medical men is a sine qua non for appointment to a better position, what about the poor unfortunate medical man in the dispensary service in the country? His only chance of promotion is within the four corners of his own county under Section 5 of the original Act. If he seeks to get a better appointment outside his own county, he cannot get it, because he cannot take the post-graduate course. A dispensary doctor is entitled to four weeks' holiday in the year. We hear a lot of talk about holidays for the Dáil and for every type of civil servant and everybody else. But the man who is working for forty-eight weeks of the year is supposed, if he wants to get further promotion, to take his post-graduate course during his four weeks' holidays. If the Minister for Local Government is in earnest about this, he should do what the medical profession have been agitating for for years, and grant men in the dispensary service special holidays to take a post-graduate course, if they so desire. That is a concession which should be granted to them, because, as far as the original Act is concerned, they can never get any further in the service unless they take this post-graduate course.

General MULCAHY

That is a different matter entirely. Assuming that there are facilities for a post-graduate course, and that dispensary doctors can be transferred from one county to another, does the Deputy suggest that the county council or the county board of health, say, in Cork, where an appointment is to be made, is going to judge between the comparative merits of a dispensary doctor from Roscommon, a dispensary doctor from Donegal, and a dispensary doctor from Cavan, who want to be transferred on promotion to Cork?

Dr. O'DOWD

I have not suggested that. What I would suggest is that a medical panel—a State panel if you wish—should be set up and that men should be promoted in rotation, if they desired promotion. As far as I am personally concerned. I stand for pro- motion within the Saorstát, not within the limits of one county.

General MULCAHY

There is nothing in the Bill about that.

Dr. O'DOWD

There is nothing in the Bill, but under the present system a man in the dispensary service has no chance of getting his name sent to the local authority if he applies to the Local Appointments Commission, because he cannot take out this post-graduate course. He has been trained in the hard school of experience. We want to know from the Selection Boards if the hard school of experience gets any credit. I submit that one or two years in the dispensary service, a training in the school of experience, is as good as all the post-graduate courses that could be taken out within twelve months. Deputy Dr. Hennessy said:—

"If a man can show he has six months' experience in a clinical hospital as a house-surgeon or 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...."

A Fellowship of one of the Royal Colleges to go into the dispensary service at a salary of £200!

"To get these things meant a good deal of time and cost to him, but it meant that certainly he was going to be appointed."

We are told that the poor man's son for the first time gets an equal chance under this Bill. And yet Deputy Hennessy, who has a wide knowledge of these things, tells us that it meant a good deal of time and cost to him, but that it meant that he certainly was going to be appointed. I wonder does the House realise what it means to get a degree such as Master of Surgery, M.D., or one of the Fellowships of the Royal Colleges. A Fellowship of the College of Surgeons, for instance, is the blue ribbon of surgery in this country.

An M.D. of one of the Irish Universities is the blue ribbon of medicine, and Master of Surgery is a degree on the same plane, perhaps, as one of the Fellowships. Yet, the poor man's son must sit down after he is qualified and study for three or four years more to get one of those Degrees or Fellowships. Then, we are told, he is certain to be appointed. But I submit he will not be a very poor man's son if he can sit down and do a post-graduate course and study for at least three years after he has been qualified. The poor man's son, as I know him, would have to work after being qualified, and if he goes down the country the moment he gets the chance he will work, and he is going to get no credit whatever for experience. He has to come up and take a post-graduate course, or take one of these Degrees. There are hundreds of excellent men in the Dispensary service who are precluded from securing better appointments because they cannot get these Degrees. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health should make arrangements whereby these men would be enabled to take these courses, and secure these Degrees if necessary for appointments. I submit that the Diploma of Public Health is an excellent Degree in itself, and it has been used as far as I can see as practically a necessary qualification for appointment. At least a good many of the people appointed recently have the D.P.H. degree. It is an excellent degree for a man who is going to be appointed a County Medical Officer of Health, but as a man practising in the Dispensary Service myself I cannot see how it is absolutely essential for an ordinary man in Dispensary practice to have the D.P.H. I thoroughly agree with Deputy Sir James Craig in what he says that one year as a house surgeon, for instance, is more important. One year's training in the school of experience in the Dispensary Service is more important than a Diploma of Public Health. A doctor in the ordinary dispensary service under the Public Health has no work that would take a doctor to do. He has simply to act on a report of a sanitary sub-officer. He has to recommend that a house here and there be whitewashed or that a manure heap should be removed. He does not need a Diploma in Public Health in a case of that kind. What he needs is commonsense.

In answer to the point made by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, I do not stand, if you like, for the Boards of Health making appointments direct. We do not ask that in this Bill. But we ask the Appointments Commission to send three names to the Board of Health. If the appointment is to be made, for instance, in the premier County of Cork it is not absolutely essential that a Corkman should be appointed. There might be one hundred and fifty men on the service at present that would take promotion, even to Cork. What we would like to know is that a man who has five years' service, or a man who has ten years' service or another man fifteen years' service, when he comes before the Selection Board, will get credit for that service. Personally, I think that if a man with ten or fifteen years' service and experience in the same kind of work is seeking an appointment that experience should count for a lot.

General MULCAHY

In order to be clear, I want to submit to the Deputy that he is not dealing with the point of promotion. The Deputy is apparently dealing with new appointments, because if he considers that he is dealing with the point of promotion I would refer him to section 6 of this Bill which deals with vacancies for professional and technical officers. The interpretation put upon that is that the local body would select a man for promotion whether in his own county or some other.

Dr. O'DOWD

I said before that I believed in the establishment of a State Panel and that the positions should be offered in rotation.

General MULCAHY

The Bill does not provide that.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

As Private Business was not taken up until 9.10 p.m., Deputies may continue this discussion until 11.40 p.m.

Dr. RYAN

I wish just to give a few instances of what I think were rather unfair appointments made by the Local Appointments Commissioners. Wexford County Board of Health for some time had a scheme. They appointed a man to act as ophthalmic surgeon to their county hospital. For a couple of years he was acting on a temporary basis and the position was this, that his work was giving such satisfaction that they made up their minds to make it a permanent appointment. When they came to that conclusion they found that the case would have to come before the Local Appointments Commission. This man was brought before the Local Appointments Commissioners as well as others. It was suggested here by some speakers, I do not know by whom, that the examining body, the Selection Board, were not acquainted as a rule with the people who came before them. In this case they were very well acquainted with some of those who came before them, with the result that the man who had been doing the work temporarily for two years was turned down in favour of a man from Dublin. Now this Wexford doctor was in the habit of attending that hospital every morning. He had done every operation that a man in his position would be expected to do, such as removing cataract, obstruction of strabismus, enucliation and lid operations. He had of course after operations of that sort to dress the eyes of the people on whom he had operated and he was prepared to go on with that. He was prepared to call every day at the hospital whereas the man now appointed is only prepared, if he gets the appointment—that is so far as the Board of Health know—to come down once a week, on Saturdays. If a person has anything wrong with his eye he will have to come before this Dublin doctor on a certain Saturday. If an operation is necessary he will have to come back the following Saturday, and if an operation has been performed the patient will, under present arrangements, at any rate, have to remain bandaged as that man leaves him until the following Saturday. It may be held, perhaps, that the Wexford doctor did not have the proper qualifications. The Wexford doctor was qualified in September, 1924, and attended the post-graduate course at the Eye and Ear Hospital in Dublin for three months. In May, 1925, he attended a further post-graduate course and obtained a certificate there.

In 1927 he attended a full three-months' post-graduate course in Paris. Again this year, 1928, he attended a short post-graduate course in the Royal Eye and Ear Hospital, London. In addition to that, as I have said, he had been actually doing work in this Hospital for two years, had given every satisfaction, and had performed with success any operation that he might have been called upon to perform in that Hospital. He was turned down in favour of a man who was well acquainted with the Selection Board— not the Appointment Board, but the Selection Board. I do not know who was first on the list, but at any rate this Wexford doctor was turned down.

What is going to happen to this man? He has not been yet agreed to by the Wexford County Board of Health. If he were agreed to he would go down every Saturday only, and it would put the people to great inconvenience. In addition to that, it would cost him somewhere about 36/- to go down and back on the train, and it is to be presumed that he might spend the other 4/- which he would have left on a meal. He would have nothing left, really, and the result would probably be that after six months or so when he had been working in this place, an application would come for an increase, which no decent Board of Public Health could refuse under the circumstances. This man is in all probability accepting the appointment for £100 a year, knowing well he cannot do it for the money, whereas the Wexford doctor was quite prepared to do it, and give service every day if necessary, and as good service, I believe, as the other could give.

There is a second case. There is another man here and it would be no harm here to give his qualifications. Starting in the Junior Grade he got a prize in mathematics; in the Middle Grade an exhibition in mathematics; Senior Grade, prize in mathematics, Latin, Irish and English; first place in arithmetic; high marks in English, and honours in geometry. At the University College, Dublin, first place in the County Council Scholarships in the County Limerick, and a University entrance scholarship. In the Faculty of Engineering he had honours in first engineering; honours in final B.E., and exhibition and first place in the final B.E. degree. In the B.Sc. course, honours in B.Sc. degree, in mathematics, physics and geology. Irish language—fluent Irish speaker; gave all holidays to Irish one session at Carrigaholt, and four at Ring Irish College, getting the full teaching certificate in Irish language at Ring College. Also, the higher diploma in education in the National University.

After going through these various courses he spent a year studying for the M.Sc. degree, but interrupted his studies towards the end to take up an appointment in Scotland. While in Scotland he applied for a certain position under the Limerick County Council, the position of Assistant Surveyor. This was about the time that the Principal Act was coming into force. The Limerick County Council appointed this man, but by the time his appointment had been made the Act came into force, and all appointments were again advertised. He was turned down for a man with a pass degree.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Perhaps the Deputy will move the adjournment of the debate?

Dr. RYAN

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned accordingly.