I hope to congratulate myself on having convinced the gentlemen opposite that there was no favour shown to members of the Free State Army who applied for positions, as they alleged. On the last occasion, when speaking on this, I instanced two cases which should make it clear to Deputies opposite that their statements were not altogether correct. With regard to another case which occurred in South Cork, I am in the position that I can get corroboration in regard to it from a member on these benches. That was a case where a doctor was appointed by the Board of Public Health and not approved of by the Local Government Department. Two candidates were then sent on to the Appointments Commissioners, and, very much to the pleasure of Deputy Corry, a man of his own way of thinking, as he says, was appointed. So much for the favour shown, as was alleged by Deputy Lemass, to members of a certain political belief. I suppose there are other county councils who took their cue from Cork. In Cork we have established a scheme of scholarships in order that the poor man's son may get the opportunity of developing and training the brains with which he has been endowed. We spend the ratepayers' money in granting these scholarships, and we have taken good care to see that it is the poor man's son gets them, because we have laid down in the scheme certain stipulations with regard to the valuation of a man's farm, and in other cases of their pensions and salaries. We could not do any more than that to ensure that it is the poor man's child who will get the scholarship.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - LOCAL AUTHORITIES (OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES) BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.
What have the scholarships got to do with this Bill?
I am afraid I am going a long way round to my point, but it was alleged here a fortnight ago that certain members were getting favour I want to show that they were not, and further that if the Appointments Commissioners are not allowed to carry on as at present that there is no use in the county councils carrying out a scheme of scholarships enabling the poor man's son to be educated up to the point of entering a profession, if you revert to the system of having three names sent down to the local bodies enabling them to select one for some particular vacancy.
What about the competitive examination?
There is the Selection Board as well as the competitive examination. The former gives a good opportunity for looking through the candidates in every way. I hold that if the Appointments Commissioners are to send down three names, as is proposed under this Bill, the result will be that it will be the old story over again. As I stated on the last night, I had experience myself of seven or eight elections for doctors. I always found that after the candidates had been galloped round the course once or twice that the election dwindled down to three. If, as is proposed now, we are to have the practice of sending down three names to the local body, then you will have the same story that you had in the old days. We in the Cork County Council hold ourselves up as an example for all Ireland. We have a Selection Board of our own even for the appointment of a typist as well as for the appointment of rate collectors and other officials. As regards rate collectors, there is one qualification at least that they should have and that is to be able to stand a bit of hardship, especially in the present times. I think that having paid out of public funds for the education of young doctors that we ought to take steps to see that the best men are appointed. The dispensary doctors attend to the poor in their districts. The poor have no choice but to go to them. When we talk so much about looking after the interests of the poor, I think we ought to see that the very best men are appointed to these positions.
My idea is that the present system is the best way of getting good men. The best men to select doctors for appointment are members of their own profession. Some people would say that the old Boards of Guardians were responsible for the creation of these Selection Boards. I do not believe all we hear about corruption as regards these old Boards of Guardians because I never saw it. A lot of damage could be done without any corruption.
There are a lot of ways of being corrupt without being corrupt at all. That is my way of reading it. One might say if a man voted for his nephew, that that was corruption. I do not think it would. It would be the natural thing to do. I think it would be corruption if we were to revert from the present to the old system. What I would call corruption would be the hard cash. If you met a man and had a drink from him that would not be corruption, nor would it be corruption to have a little thanksgiving after an election. The damage is done then and there would be no harm in having a little champagne. I remember on one occasion that a man got so much champagne that he came into my house on the following day and asked for two bottles of cider and two glasses of whiskey as the nearest approach to champagne. I think that we should stick to the system that is now being carried out and leave these appointments to the Selection Board composed of capable men who have no axe to grind as far as the candidates are concerned. As far as the Local Government Department is concerned, we are assured and believe that they do not know the members of these Selection Boards at all. As I said a moment ago, if you do away with these Selection Boards, young doctors, poor men's sons, educated at the public expense, will have no chance of getting an appointment. What chance would they have if you were to go back to the old system and adopt the principle now advocated of sending down three names?
After the passing of the Local Government Act of 1898 and from 1898 to 1922 there were thousands of local appointments made under the new bodies set up under the Local Government Act of 1898, and I challenge the Minister for Local Government, or any member of the Government, to state whether those men who were appointed prior to 1922 did not compare more than favourably in respect of ability, character and general proficiency with the officials who were appointed since 1926. Although some of the Deputies opposite owe their meteoric rise to place and power to membership of local bodies, when they got into the Dáil one of their first acts was to dissolve these local bodies and turn down the comrades who served with them prior to 1922. These gentlemen found out mighty quickly how inefficient the local bodies became, and one by one they were dissolved. It was quite all right to climb to place and power by the help of these bodies, but once in office they took very good care that these councils were quickly got rid of. It was quite the thing to use these local bodies in 1922 to boost the Treaty so as to get the people of the country to accept it. It was soon forgotten the part local councils played from 1918 to 1922 during the Black and Tan regime. Of course, having played their part and put these men into power and after passing the necessary resolutions they were soon after discovered to be corrupt, and then this corruption at all costs must be got rid of. Similarly with the officials. When the local officials failed to bend the knee to Caesar other devices were tried to get rid of them, and to make certain where new appointments were made that only Free State supporters would get the appointments, the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act of 1926 was passed so as to make certain that only the nominees of Merrion Street were appointed to local positions. There is no doubt in the minds of the people of the West of Ireland as to why that measure was introduced and passed. The real and only cause for bringing it into the Dáil and passing it was to get rid of their political opponents, and prevent them getting any appointments under the local bodies. The excuse was made that these councils were corrupt and the Dáil was asked for permission to make these appointments in Dublin. After the country was bludgeoned and dragooned in 1922 and 1923 the local officials were combed out, and under the Local Authorities (officers and Employees) Act very good care was taken that none but true, tried and trusted Cumann na nGaedheal sycophants would be selected. Knowing all this we are asked from these benches to submit certain cases of corruption—knowing, as we do, the record of the Government through their Departments. Take the Land Commission, for instance. In the case of grants that are distributed down the country we know who gets the gangership. Even the man who only earns 24/- a week, a road man, if he had not a Cumann na nGaedheal membership card would not get the earning of even 24/- a week, and yet we are brazenly asked to submit cases.
Is it necessary to submit any cases when all one has to do is to go into the Land Commission Office and find out there the different officials appointed, and why they were appointed, since 1922? If we go into the Local Government Department Offices we will find the same state of affairs, and also in the other Government Departments. Then we are asked to submit cases of corruption. If we go into those offices we will find brothers, cousins and other relatives of the Ministers all basking in the sunlight of freedom and soft jobs, occupying easy chairs, and then we are asked to submit cases of corruption. We are told this is a bad Bill. If every word in the Bill was a word of wisdom it would not meet with the approval of the Ministers opposite, but if the Bill was drafted in Downing Street it would then be accepted. It is not accepted because it is an attempt to give fair play to all classes of the community. I do not know how the rank and file opposite are going to vote. I know that when this matter of the Local Appointments Committee is discussed at county council meetings down the country, the Cumann na nGaedheal members of the councils speak against the Bill, but when they come up here and the official whip is cracked they will answer the call of the whip, and so of course they will go in and vote against this Bill. Of course, there is no use in having an automatic majority if one does not use it; there is no use in having patronage if it is not zealously guarded. The dishonesty and corruption practised by local councils was not one-tenth of the mass-corruption and petty meanness practised at headquarters.
took the Chair.
Give one instance.
I have mentioned the Land Commission down the country. Go into the Land Commission Offices and look at the list of officials appointed since 1922.
Mr. WOLFE
Give me one instance.
We are told that the reason for the Act of 1926 was to squelch the long-tailed families with a pull down the country. The Government know well that the best men are not always got by skill in passing examinations. There is something more required; it is poise, judgment and experience which reveal the best men. I wonder would Arnott's or Clery's appoint as their business manager a man simply because he happened to pass an examination? This Bill is introduced as a genuine attempt to amend the Act of 1926 and bring it into conformity with the wishes of the local bodies. There is scarcely a local paper one picks up in which one will not find expressions of grave dissatisfaction and adverse comment at these local appointments. There is continual friction between the Local Government Department and the local bodies. I hold that the recommendations contained in this Bill should be accepted by the Government, and the Bill referred to a Committee of the Dáil. What I would like to see built up is a local Civil Service for employees of local authorities on the basis of the permanent Civil Service, whereby officials could be transferred from one local body to another, and if found suitable would get promotion in the different grades of the local services, that from the more highly qualified men and women the office staff of the Local Government Department could be recruited.
I believe that if a scheme on these lines was prepared it would tend to build up a more efficient local and national service. There is lacking in the present local service the incentive to work hard. There is no scheme of promotion in the service, and the local official falls into a rut, loses hope, becomes despondent, and fails to put all his energy, brains and ability into the work, simply because the system lacks the compelling force. Since the Free State was set up officers of the local authorities have been appointed to posts in the Local Government Department, and from their training and experience I have no doubt they are excellent officials. That goes to prove that if the principle was extended it would be to the benefit of the service and of the officials. In introducing the Bill of 1926.——
On a point of order. Is the Deputy entitled to read his speech?
I am not reading it.
He is entitled to read from notes.
Deputy Holt.
In introducing the Bill of 1926 the then Minister for Local Government stated that the intention of the Bill, as drafted, was to close the door on jobbery and on the abuses they were trying to stamp out. In the discussion that took place on June 8th of this year the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Bourke, said: "I have no sympathy with the point of view that our local bodies are hotbeds of corruption." You cannot blow hot and cold. You cannot hold that in 1926 it was necessary to introduce the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act because there was such corruption, and now in June, 1928, to say that you have no sympathy with the point of view that our local bodies are hotbeds of corruption. Were the local bodies so corrupt prior to 1922? If they were corrupt why did not President Cosgrave show up that corruption when he was a member of the Dublin Corporation? Why did not the Minister for Finance, whose work brought him in contact with local bodies day after day, show up corruption if corruption existed? I say it was the duty of the Minister to show up this corruption if it existed. The county councils are elected on a more conservative basis than the Dáil. Members of local bodies are elected by people who have a stake in the country, yet we are told that it is only the Dáil, committees of the Dáil or institutions set up by the Dáil that should have the selection and election of officers under local authorities.
There was recently a case in Leitrim of a Miss McIntyre who was appointed to a post as rate collector. The Department accepted a sum of, I think, £300 which she had no right whatever to pay. Miss McIntyre was not a surety for her brother but the Department took the money.
The appointment of this young lady has not been sanctioned since. I wonder is it because the Scriptures say "The Lord will visit the sins of the father on the children to the third and fourth generation," that in a similar manner the Local Government Department are visiting the sins of the brother on the sister, and that the sister will not get the appointment because the brother erred? I hope that is not so. An idea is prevalent down the country that everything must be done in Dublin; all these appointments must be made in Dublin; sanctions must come from Dublin; the wires must be pulled in Dublin, and any person who has not a political pull in Dublin need not look forward to any of these local appointments. I do not know that I can do better than quote what Deputy Gorey is reported to have said in this House on the discussion which took place on the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Bill in 1926.
Are you going to quote from "Fox's Book of Martyrs," because he is the martyr of the Farmers' Party?
The Deputy said:
What object have we now in calling this Department the Local Government Department, or calling the Minister Minister for Local Government? It is the Department of Central Government, and he is Minister for Central Government. Local authority and local jurisdiction is gone. Under the Bill every vestige of what was local authority resides now with the Minister. Not a single appointment can be made, not even a road-maker or a stone-breaker can be appointed by the local authorities....
I think, in common decency, the first thing we ought to do in connection with this Bill is to remove the term "Local Government Department and Minister for Local Government," and not have this palpable fallacy. We are asked to believe that some Committee of Public Appointments are going to be superhuman beings—people who must live shut up behind glass walls. They will be without family influence. Nothing can influence them. I can see the members of this Local Appointments Committee invited to all the teas and luncheons in Dublin.
Small wonder that Deputy Gorey was disgusted in 1926. I have often wondered why it was necessary to have all these luncheon parties at Clery's. I see it now. I wonder is Deputy Gorey as much against the Local Appointments Commission to-day as he was in 1926 and, if he is, will he vote for this Bill as introduced? Deputy Gorey on the last occasion, speaking with reference to this Bill, said that in counties bordering on the Shannon corruption was rife. He mentioned the case of Limerick. I remember that in 1917 a similar charge was made against members of Leitrim County Council, and a public inquiry was called for. The very members of the Council who made the charges against Leitrim County Council were the first to run away. Perhaps if there was a public inquiry in the case of Limerick Deputy Gorey would be the first person to give it the go-by. I would ask this House to accept this Bill in the spirit in which it was introduced and to let it go to a committee to devise some better means than we have at present for these local appointments.
So much has been said about this Bill that I do not propose to add anything except to give the information that Deputy Wolfe asked for. Deputy Wolfe asked for one specific case of victimisation.
Mr. WOLFE
Or corruption.
Mr. JORDAN
Or corruption or otherwise. I will take it any way you wish. A doctor was wanted in County Galway for the Hospital and Dispensary Board, and the local Committee appointed Dr. O'Shea. The oath of allegiance came down with the appointment, and Dr. O'Shea, as a Republican, said he would not take it. The Local Government Department refused to sanction his appointment because of his political principles. The committee that appointed Dr. O'Shea asked him to continue his work. He did so for three months. The Local Government Department refused to sanction him. The position was not advertised under either body. Dr. O'Shea fulfilled the duties in the hospital, and no other doctor applied for the appointment at the time. We could not get another doctor to apply, and we wanted to have the sick poor in the Central Hospital in Galway attended to. We kept the doctor working for six months and paid his salary. The Local Government Department surcharged some members of the Board for doing so. A doctor was wanted quite recently for a dispensary in County Galway. Before the setting up of the Local Appointments Commission we had, what was called, a promotion scheme in Galway. We graded the hospitals in the county into first, second and third class. The Connemara area, being the poorest of the dispensary areas, was graded third class. The dispensary at Oranmore was vacant. We circularised all the doctors in County Galway, but none of them applied. They did not consider it promotion to go there. We then in pursuance of the promotion scheme advertised for a doctor in the Saorstát and one applied who had passed the Local Appointments Commissioners in competition with six other doctors for a dispensary in Donegal. The Local Appointments Commissioners sent Dr. Jennings, who was a Galway man, to Donegal. Dr. Jennings applied for the dispensary at Oranmore in order to get back to his own county. He was the only applicant and was elected unanimously, but the Department of Local Government refused to sanction him. He was not fit for Galway, although he passed the examination for Donegal. I have no hesitation in saying that if Dr. Jennings or his people held other views he would be sanctioned for Oranmore, but because he and his people think as they do he was not appointed. I hope that will satisfy Deputy Wolfe that there is a certain amount of corruption, or victimisation if you like, in the Local Appointments Commission.
Mr. WOLFE
I am still waiting for an instance of a wrong appointment being made by the Commissioners. You can camouflage it as much as you like, but I am still waiting for an answer to the question I asked.
Mr. JORDAN
If you are not getting wrong appointments you are getting something very much akin to them. Why was that man not sanctioned?
Mr. WOLFE
By whom?
Mr. JORDAN
By the Department of Local Government.
Mr. WOLFE
But there is nothing in that about local appointments.
The last two speeches have, to my mind, exemplified quite an amount of the rubbish that has been talked from beginning to end about amending a perfectly good Act. The last speaker gave two examples that are entirely away from what we are discussing. Number one was about victimisation which he described as occurring in one place where a man would not take what has been decided as a necessary oath before he is eligible for an appointment. And that is corruption or victimisation! The Deputy does not care which term he applies to it, and he does not care that it was an action of the Department of Local Government, if there was anything in it at all, and that we are discussing the Local Appointments Commissioners. Deputy Holt has the habit of some members of his Party. The part of his speech to which I listened with interest, and in which I had a great deal of belief was the part in which he joined with his colleague, Deputy O'Dowd, in running down the system of examination pure and simple. What have we proposed in this Bill? We have an attempt to establish the system of examination much more rigidly than it was before. This is a point that has been very much argued on this Bill. The Minister for Finance said: "It was left in the first instance completely in the hands of the local authority as to whether or not there should be a dispensing with the system of examination." That statement was challenged, but that statement stands as an accurate statement of fact- "and the local authority in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Minister."
If the local authority does not agree it is a condition precedent to dispensing with the competitive examination that the local authority must ask for a certain thing. Therefore the local authority, by not asking, can impose a system of examination for cases where the system of examination should never be required. Attempts have been made, and Deputy O'Kelly made a long attempt to prove that what the Minister for Finance said was wrong, but what the Minister for Finance said on that holds. Yet this is a Bill which Deputies Holt and O'Dowd think very strongly of, though both have expressed themselves very strongly as being against the system of competitive examination. Similarly we have had over and over again since this debate started the talk that we have listened to from Deputy Holt when he was interrupted by Deputy Wolfe, about corruption, and he talked in the most general terms. Asked by Deputy Wolfe to give an instance under this local appointments system, all that Deputy Holt could do was to drift away into vague talk with regard to the Land Commission Staff, and matters like that. Another Deputy gave two cases, clearly and entirely, on his own confession, outside the scope of this discussion. Now, there has been an attempt right through the whole of this debate to get away from the enthusiasm of the early speakers, who wandered in with statements that glaring cases of corruption were to be given. The phrases were "corruption,""nepotism,""favouritism" and "political appointments."
Deputy de Valera said several times that charges would be made. I find it difficult to understand what Deputy de Valera did mean by the phrase which has been so often quoted. It certainly was in a peculiar juxtaposition, if he did not want to have himself understood, in the ordinary meaning that anyone would take out of his words, that he personally was going to be apart and aloof from these detailed charges in regard to corruption. He may not have meant it, but if so the juxtaposition of his words "The talk about corruption which formerly was fairly frequent with respect to the local bodies is now turned on to the Local Appointments Commission"—that is the thought at that particular point—"I am not going to go into details as to whether there is any justification for that or not," is strange. Deputy de Valera will not go into the question of corruption, but he said: "Other Deputies will be speaking and will probably refer to certain appointments." If that does not mean certain appointments which have an atmosphere of corruption about them it is a very unfortunate placing of his words. But that is not his only statement in the matter. Deputy de Valera said later, with regard to the local bodies: "They were known locally and that responsibility was perfectly clear to them, and the people who elected them, knowing that they would have responsibilities of that particular kind to discharge. so that I say the difference in the whole case people feel is this: formerly corruption was nearly almost always revealed. There was a check, therefore, by publicity on it. But they feel at present, if there is favouritism of that particular kind at the centre, there is no check of any kind upon it," again a deliberate avoiding of a clear statement that there is corruption, but the insinuation there the whole time, and if that was not meant it was the second time in which the Deputy was rather unfortunate in the choice of his words.
Continuing along that same line, Deputy de Valera said: "I think it is very important that there should be public confidence that appointments of this kind are made in the interests of the community as a whole and not to give jobs to friends, or anything of that particular kind." Again there is the suspicion and the innuendo that there is corruption in the making of appointments by the Local Appointments Commissioners. The Deputy at the end stated that he was not giving his own views on this thing. That was towards the end of his speech, and whether is is supposed to refer to the whole Bill, that in fact he is unwillingly bringing in this Bill, or whether it merely refers to the statements it was expected to produce in this effort to amend a good Act, it is hard to see, but in the end he did confess: "I am not giving my own opinions on this thing." But the Deputy has been the recipient of a certain number of unsavoury stories and unfounded suspicions, but he does not justify them.
He is not alone. Deputy Ward to make up by vehemence for the absence of any details, announced himself in this way: "I know a fair share about public administration and about the public life of the country, and I say quite deliberately that the corruption —there may be, and probably is, in isolated cases corruption in public bodies—practised by public bodies down the country is put in the shade by the corruption that is practised at headquarters." Deputy Maguire hinted at things that were being spoken of—insinuations that were going round. He gave one case in which he professed to find grounds for suspicion, and I will deal with a concrete case later. Deputy Boland guarded himself much better than any other member of his Party. Deputy Boland hinted at a number of things, while at the same time expressing himself to the effect that it is impossible to find out anything wrong, because although they believe there is a considerable amount wrong it has been cloaked and hidden too efficiently. But the man who says that everything is cloaked and hidden too efficiently does not think that he is stultifying himself in any way by saying that nevertheless there are cases of favouritism, corruption and political appointments. He guards himself with phrases. He says at the beginning of his speech: "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"—that if we could be in the position to find it out, then if we did find out the things we are looking for, what a great case we could make!
"The Minister, however," he continued, "has been challenging us to produce some specific cases of corruption. He challenged us with an air of assurance that there were no leakages.""I do not believe," he continued, "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." That is by a person who says it is impossible to give a case. But the whole substance of the introduction of the Bill is based upon the fact that there is suspicion going about. Deputy Lemass said: "Every Deputy on these benches, and he believed every Deputy in the House if he was honest about it, could give out of his own experience an example that would prove...." I am not binding Deputy Lemass to the charge of corruption, but either to corruption, nepotism, political influence or some of the many evils alleged against the Local Appointments Commission system. Deputy Boland referred to a statement made by the Minister for Finance later, and he continued in that fashion. That is the speech of a man substantiating this particular type of amendment: "Perhaps I could throw light on that. Perhaps the political opinion of some of the applicants would have something to do with it." Finally he makes one specific statement: "We know that people have been turned down for political reasons." At that point I began to write. I thought I was going to get one case from Deputy Boland. Instead of that he retreated again: "A specific case cannot be produced for the reason that it was done in a star-chamber way." But the Deputy, who knows all the people who have been turned down for political reasons, going on and feeling himself bound, as I thought, in the course of his remarks, to come to some specific case, blocks his own way by saying that a specific case cannot be produced for the reason that this is done in a star-chamber way. Then, feeling that he had weakened his own point, he gets back to the region of innuendo and insinuation and says: "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." These are typical of the vague charges that have been made with regard to how the Public Appointments Commission works. There were seven or eight cases given—omitting the case given by the last Deputy who spoke as not having anything to do with the scope of the discussion.
A DEPUTY
Will the Minister deal with the case given by Deputy Ryan?
Will the Deputy wait and see if I have mentioned them? I gather there were eleven specific cases spoken of. There was the assistant matron, appointed in the mental hospital somewhere in Sligo or Leitrim, referred to by Deputy Maguire. One listened for the gravamen of the charge, which was that a particular lady who should have got the appointment, according to him, did not even get notice of whatever it was, either the examination or to appear before the Selection Board or something else. He admitted that she had changed her address. There was apparently a charge of corruption or something based on the fact that she did not get an interview with the Selection Board at a particular time. That was the only instance that Deputy Maguire gave.
Deputy Ward had four cases. One was a dispensary doctor appointed at Scotstown. I want to find out the seriousness of that situation. Deputy Ward entered upon a line of argument from which he checked himself almost immediately—a line or agument leading up to the criticism in this House of a colleague, a member of his own profession, who was not here to reply to him. The main point about the Scotstown appointment, as far as I can gather, was this: that according to Deputy Ward, he was not aware "that this man had any special qualifications unless the fact that during all the years of the national struggle, when this other man's family brought themselves down financially in the world owing to their national services, this man all this time conducted his practice in England and that he came back from England to fill this appointment over the other man." Are we to generalise from that case quoted by Deputy Ward, and hold that any man who has served in England in any capacity is not going to be considered eligible for appointments under the Local Appointments Commission or any service in this country? How would he act in regard to his colleague, Deputy Flinn, in regard to that?
A DEPUTY
Will the Minister state if the man had any special qualifications?
I am quoting from Deputy Ward.
A DEPUTY
Will you state if this particular doctor had any special qualifications for the position?
As the Local Appointments Commission appointed him there is a prima facie case that he was the best qualified. The Deputy did not allege that he had not better qualifications than the person whom he thought should get the post. The Deputy was making his case and he had full time to give evidence; he was there to give evidence against the Local Appointments Commission, and the whole charge is that the man who came across had been practising in England. The Deputy was not aware that he had any special qualifications.
A DEPUTY
Neither are you.
I do not want to be aware of them. I do not want to be satisfied on every particular case brought up. I take it the charge was seriously made. The best that the Deputy can say is that the man was brought across from England when someone else was fighting here. Is that going to be applied generally? Are we going to have it that people are to be ruled out from other appointments, from service in the Dáil, for instance, because they wore the uniform of England at one time? Let him apply that to his own Party and get the judgment of his own Party upon his generalisation.
Are we going to apply the doctrine that practice in England is a special qualification?
The Deputy, as usual, will blunder into a mistake. Has it been stated that that was regarded as a special qualification?
You inferred that.
It is not to be inferred. No one has said that. No one can infer that from the remarks of Deputy Ward. All he said was that as far as he was aware, he had no special qualifications.
That is the inference.
That is the inference of the man who stands up to make a case against the Bill. The second case was another dispensary appointment in County Monaghan—I do not know where it was and I did not bother looking into this case. All that Deputy Ward could say was "I understand that the man appointed to the position had been able to take up one of those post-graduate courses that Deputy Hennessy told us about, and he had degrees that the local candidates did not have. But I do say this that the other candidate has taken his degrees in medicine, in surgery and in midwifery, and he had been four years practising in the town"—that is the serious part of the argument from Deputy Ward's point of view—"That town, with a couple of thousand of population, has four doctors in it already. I do say that it is not good administration to send down another doctor to that area because some one or two of them must go to the wall." Supposing that they send down a really first-class man and that two or three people who were no good went to the wall would the Deputy speaking not as a medical practitioner in any area in Monaghan, but simply from the point of view of the public health, say that that was a wrong thing to do? That is the second case the Deputy talked about.
We then come to the famous Kilskyre case, that was alluded to later. It was argued that Deputy Ward had for the first time introduced into this House the question of religion in making appointments. Deputy Ward denied that. He had not done it directly, no doubt, but simply by reading a letter relative to the appointment. The appointment was one of the four which Deputy Ward gave as a statement of facts against the Local Appointments Commissioners, and the only evidence he gave with regard to this being an appointment which was unsatisfactory were the facts contained in the letter. Deputy Ward lives near the border. I wonder will the medical practitioners on the other side of the border be pleased at the headline he has set to another Government with regard to medical appointments in future—that religion is to be a necessary qualification, that religion is to be a thing to be looked to, that the religion of the people whom the doctor is going to move around amongst——
Will you read the quotation?
If the Deputy thinks I am mis-quoting him let him point where.
I am sure you are.
The Deputy introduced the case as a bad case from the point of view of the Commissioners. The whole point in the letter is that it was a Catholic community and that a Catholic doctor should be appointed for certain reasons given.
That is part of the letter.
I ask the Deputy does he think that he is going to be very popular in his own district for giving that headline to people across the border when they make appointments—that folk who are of another religious tendency will insist on having medical men of their own point of view.
I never knew them to do anything else.
The Deputy is giving them a headline for the future, even if they have been doing it up to date. It is not a very good argument, either from the point of the Six Counties or this State; particularly not a good argument from the point of view of a person who is a graduate of the National University, and who knows how many of these graduates get work in a country where the religious opinions of the people differ entirely from those of the medical men who get the appointment.
You should have told them that in the Six Counties. You never worried about the Six Counties.
Take your medicine; you well earned it.
The Deputy had another case just equally as good—a matronship again in a Monaghan hospital! The difficulty was the Local Selection Board. That is the best case the Deputy brought forward because there are certainly no evil arguments with regard to religion and no hopeless argument with regard to where a person was during the earlier period, and no fatuous arguments with regard to a good man being sent down and driving three medical practitioners to the wall. This is a case that possibly might be examined into by a Committee just as to what that Board was. Remember that was a local Board, the type of Board that other Deputies asked should be set up. Deputies from the Party opposite argued that in case of an appointment where there was a very big local interest there should be some advertence to that, and that the Selection Board should be taken from the people of the locality.
Deputy Lemass professed to give two cases, and they have only to be spoken of just to show exactly where the Deputy has got in the course of his argument. He simply said, in the most dogmatic way, that he knew men who had been appointed as dispensary doctors and who had not been a day sober since appointment. That was one of the two main arguments that Deputy Lemass thought fit to put forward with regard to the work of the Local Appointments Commission. When he found that that particular line of argument did not appeal to the House as being a decent type of argument to bring forward, he retraced his steps. He asked was it seriously considered that every appointment made by the Commissioners was the best, that they make no mistakes whatever, and that there was no question of error? He also asked " Is it seriously contended that appointments have been made by the Local Appointments Commissioners which are nit bad?" Deputy Lemass, although he starts with corruption and nepotism and political influence and bad appointments made in good faith, follows that up by saying that no system of appointment will ensure that you will always get good appointments made in good faith. That is one of Deputy Lemass's cases, at least a series of cases grouped together in that way— that men whom he knows—not individual men—were appointed as doctors who have not been a day sober since they were appointed. Then there was a particularly foolish thing, which I think he himself came to regard as foolish, of a doctor whom he knew at Harepark at the Curragh who gave a man a does out of a bottle and the man died. There are some medical men in this House! Would they like to have their reputation founded upon that—that they gave a man a does out of a bottle and the man died? Would any of them stand much chance for an appointment anywhere if that were urged as a charge against them?
Again you are not quoting accurately.
Let the Deputy get columns 531 and 532 of the Official Report—I cannot quote two pages. It is within the memory of the House.
It is entirely misrepresenting his point.
I shall read it if the Deputy likes.
"There was a doctor there and he used to go round all the huts once a day, accompained 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.'"
That is a different point.
I should like to have it explained.
A doctor might not like to base his reputation on the fact that he might give a dose of medicine to a man and that he dies. He might not like to base his reputation on the fact that he gave the same dose of medicine to a man with a broken leg as to a man with consumption.
Would the Deputy like to have his reputation taken away by that type of tittle-tattle of what some man said in the presence of two or three people? Would the Deputy not recognise that that joke must have been made round about the days of Aristophanes—about the doctor who gave the same medicine to a man with a fractured limb and to a man with some sort of chest complaint?
I dare say it was an old joke.
That is one of Deputy Lemass's cases, and the other was that men had been appointed as dispensary doctors who have not been a day sober since their appointment. These are Deputy Lemass's two sets of facts as against the work of the Local Appointments Commission. There are four other cases made outside the two absurd cases given by the last Deputy who spoke. Deputy O'Kelly talked about a town clerk appointed in Enniscorthy. Deputy Little spoke of a surveyor appointed in County Waterford, and I think Deputy Ryan gave three cases—an engineer appointed in Limerick, a Wexford County Board of Health appointment—I think that was the ophthalmologist. Of these four cases, the one given by Deputy O'Kelly with regard to the Town Clerk of Enniscorthy was entirely wrong. With regard to two of the others—I leave out the surveyor—the Minister for Education said here that this was not an accurate description of the work of the Local Appointments Commission since they were established; that the Selection Board examined into the professional and technical qualifications of people; that they placed them in a particular order, and that that order could only be varied by the reaction on that list of three other items. One of these is a knowledge of Irish, for which a preference was given; the second the fact that a man comes from the locality for which a slight preference is given; and the third being whatever may afterwards be discovered with regard to the man in connection with a series of things given in the Act —age, health, character, and, I think, moral conduct. In no case can it be said that the names sent up by the Selection Board, examining from the technical and professional point of view, are varied except by reason of Irish, some local qualifications for which only a slight preference is given and which is asked for in the amending Bill, and what there may be from the examination that was made with regard to health, age, character, and, I think, moral conduct—at any rate, there is a fourth. The surveyor of whom Deputy Ryan spoke——
I did not raise that case as a case of corruption. I raised it in answer to a point that the examining body or the Selection Board were always unacquainted with the men they examined. I raised it to show that the man selected was actually an assistant to one of the examining board.
Which case was this?
The appointment of an ophthalmologist in Wexford who was actually an assistant to one of the members of the Selection Board.
That may be, but I make that general statement. I would like to say a word in reference to the engineering appointment, in regard to which Deputy Dr. Ryan seems to have put up a good case. Deputy Professor O'Sullivan, in answering that, pointed out that the case turned entirely on the point of experience. Deputy Dr. Ryan said that the man had experience. The man himself did not claim to have experience. It was on that point, that though the man had a fine academic record, but had not experience, he was not appointed.
He claimed to me to have experience.
The only thing which the Appointments Commissioners or the Selection Board have to go on is what a man claims in the form which he puts in. With regard to the other two cases I make this statement—Professor O'Sullivan has made it already—that the only variation made from the list of placings sent out by the Selection Board, is by reason of the items I have mentioned. I take this for the purpose of comparison. I am not saying that this is the only thing put in the Bill, but the Bill founds itself on a more rigid system of competitive examination. Surely examination results can be twisted and disturbed quite as much as the placings made by a Selection Board. The only security is that an examiner who gave the marks and who knows how they were distributed, will know that the people are not appearing in the order in which he marked them. Surely the same can be asked in regard to Selection Boards? Surely if there are as many cases as Deputy Lemass stated, when he said that he believed that every member of every Party, if he were honest, could give instances into which political prejudice entered, it is reasonable to expect that some Selection Boards would have complained many times and complained openly that their placings had been disturbed, that the name of a man whom they recommended and in regard to whom they saw no reason to suppose that he would not get the appointment, was disturbed in the list of placings. Surely we would have had a great outcry from some members of the Selection Board if that were the case. Surely they would have made some comment on it. The same thing would apply to examinations. I have neither the time nor the intention to go into the cases mentioned by the last speaker, as they are not relevant. These are the two cases spoken of, and on these, we are to found this Bill, which is described not as a repeal of the Principal Act, but merely as an extension and an amendment of it. Is it an extension to say that instead of a single name being sent down to a local authority the local authority has a right to demand a panel? We have been talking here as if that panel comprised only three names, whereas it might be 43. The Deputy may not have meant that, but let him read the Bill. Local authorities can demand a panel of 43 names.
They, may demand that, but they will get only three.
That is not in the Bill.
It is.
No. Even if it is limited to three, what difference does it make to the unfortunate man who has to start the old system of canvassing again, go around visiting and provide all the refreshments mentioned by Deputy Daly, if that was a true picture of conditions in the past under a local authority, about which I know nothing? Surely the competition is only intensified by three candidates being left in for the final round. When each man knows that he has only two competitors to beat, that the opposition is weakened by the way in which the numbers are reduced, the competition is intensified from the point of view that each of the three candidates knows that he has got to the last fence and it is his great effort to get over that last fence. By that simple change, there is a complete repeal of the old Act and that complete repeal of the old Act should not be carried out on the fatuous cases put up by Deputy Dr. Ward. The case mentioned by Deputy Lemass and the better case mentioned by Deputy Dr. Ryan did not show any evidence of corruption, intrigue, or the victimisation of anybody. I would put it to Deputies if they consider the details of this Bill, though it may not be meant, they will find that there will be set up under it a more rigid form of examination than there has been up to the present. A local authority must take the initiative in the matter. If the local authority remains recalcitrant and demands a competitive examination in regard to a medical appointment or in regard to the appointment of a county surveyor, then there must be a competitive examination and that is the only way in which the appointment can be made.
I have some difficulty in reconciling this idea of a panel of three with the other clause which provides that there is to be a competitive examination and that the first name must be sent down or where there is more than one vacancy that only one name must be sent down for each vacancy. I was amused to find corroboration of the attitude taken up on this side with regard to the Bill, in the speech of Deputy MacEntee, because the Deputy definitely referred to the three names that would have to be sent down when there is to be a competitive examination. That is the difficulty of reconciling the two clauses. I think I know what is meant, but we have to discuss what is before us. Deputy Dr. O'Dowd was very frank in his attitude on one matter. He is backed by Deputy Holt. It is an attitude with which I have a certain amount of sympathy, but I would not have gone to the length to which they have gone in regard to it. Deputy Dr. Hennessy said that he could not understand Deputy de Valera backing this Bill. He spoke of him as Chancellor of the National University, but I suggest that where he is wrong is not in thinking of Deputy de Valera as Deputy de Valera but as Chancellor of the National University. If Deputy de Valera were a man of academic standing we might expect some indication of that throughout this measure, but we certainly would not expect to find two members of his Party running down examinations as a method of selection in the way they have done. If Deputy de Valera had been a real member of the University, and if he were associated with the students, he would know what these students feel in regard to these appointments, but the fact is that he did not form any part of the student body in that University. Neither can it be said that, academically, has he any authority to speak as Chancellor of the University in this matter.
He is speaking only as a Deputy.
I am speaking of the arguments used in regard to his occupancy of the other position, and that one would not expect this Bill to be introduced by him. I say it is quite proper to expect it from him as leader of his Party, and people who know the circumstances under which the Chancellorship was got know that it is not in any way inconsistent or astonishing that he should back this Bill.
If the Minister wants to suggest to the House that the appointment of Deputy de Valera as Chancellor of the National University should be discussed, perhaps he will put down a motion.
I have no intention of doing so.
I suggest that at present he is out of order, while at the same time I do not mind him, because we all know what to expect from him.
I am only pointing out what people who know Deputy de Valera might expect from him, notwithstanding that he has a certain title at the moment.
Leave out "at the moment."
That is what I would like to discuss on the motion— an appointment got and kept under false pretences, and I leave it at that.
Is the Minister in order in making that remark?
That is a remark that should be withdrawn.
I withdraw entirely if that remark is supposed to be contrary to what is expected in this House, and I apologise to the Deputy for having used it.
A DEPUTY
Mean propaganda.
I will discuss it elsewhere. Deputy Little went out of his way to attack certain bodies with which he is associated. I think that it is quite wrong that Deputy Little should be allowed to say what he did in regard to a certain body with which he is associated. He has given that as an analogy to local appointments under review. I know these bodies quite as well as Deputy Little, and I would like to deny here the particular implications that arose out of that statement with regard to one of these bodies which has a particular university tinge. If Deputy Dr. O'Dowd's or Deputy Holt's views in regard to examinations are to be the views held by members of that Party, why insist, as in Clause 10 of the Bill, that there is going to be a much more rigid system of examination than what there is under the Act? Although I would not approve of examinations being the final test for a considerable number of appointments, I put it to the House that they should not put it into the power of a local authority to demand that for a particular type of appointment, such as that of a county surveyor, or a medical appointment, there shall be immediately established an examination.
Deputy Professor O'Sullivan, speaking on this Bill, referred to the Labour Party's amendment, which suggests that this Bill should be referred to a committee. Certain suggestions have been made by Deputy O'Connell with regard to that. He agreed, I think, with the principal points put to him by the Minister for Finance. In fact, he stated himself that it was not his purpose to have the Committee inquire into the actual appointments but to inquire only in regard to the system. The Minister for Finance said that it was the intention if this Bill were defeated but not otherwise, to have such an examination conducted on the lines suggested by Deputy O'Connell, but on no other lines.
By what kind of committee? Is it by a committee set up by this House?
Keeping back all papers showing jobbery.
The wording of Deputy O'Connell's amendment is "a Select Committee." That means a Select Committee of the House.
Is that the kind of Committee you suggest?
I say that there is a willingness to fall in with that suggestion on the lines of the statement made by Deputy O'Connell, in which he said that he did not want to inquire into specific appointments, but into the system.
I think the Minister should explain whether it is the intention of the Government to set up such a Committee and to allow that Committee to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. Will he also go so far as to give us the terms of reference?
I would accept, almost, Deputy O'Connell's terms if they are amended so as to bring them into line with his own statement. I think Deputy O'Connell will agree that the Committee should not go into particular appointments, as he stated in moving his amendment. I will read what the Deputy said:—
"I want to make it quite clear that I do not mean that this Committee should go into particular appointments that have been made under the Act. I want to make that quite clear. I do not propose that the particular appointments that were made, or the methods used by the Local Appointments Commission of finding out who would be the best candidate for any particular appointment, would be inquired into in any particular way. What I do wish, would be to get a Committee together which would find out what the general complaints are with regard to the working of this Act generally, and what defects have been shown in its working and in its operations."
I think the statement has come twice from this side that that type of Committee would be set up, not the type of Committee referred to in the amendment, which would lead to much more being inquired into than what Deputy O'Connell wants. If that type of Committee is wanted, it is agreed to on the understanding——
What is the objection to inquiring into particular cases?
It was explained that certain undertakings were given and received of a confidential nature in regard to certain information, and it was also explained that in respect of certain suggestions or names of persons which came before the Selection Boards there was an expression of opinion on the files. The Deputy will understand that it is unreasonable to have publication of these matters.
It is a question of keeping your bond again.
Certainly.
Would it be any more unreasonable to have these files examined than that the Public Accounts Committee should have documents which they are entitled to examine?
Apart from the question of the Public Accounts Committee, these people have got a guarantee in the following terms: "All communications and information which the members of the Board receive as such are to be regarded as strictly confidential and the Commissioners will so regard any report or information which a Board forwards to them." Nobody can get behind that guarantee with regard to the cases that have been gone into.
If a candidate who has been given that guarantee is definitely prepared to have the qualifications of both himself and the successful candidate put into the open, are you prepared to have that case inquired into openly?
Such a case never arose.
I will give it very quickly.
The Deputy had plenty of time to speak and he did not do it. There is no guarantee given to candidates. It is a question of the Selection Board.
It is a guarantee of secrecy.
The Deputy used the word "candidate." There is no guarantee given to candidates in regard to anything. There is a guarantee given in regard to Selection Boards, with regard to the references of the candidates. You will not get proper results unless such guarantees are given.
I might qualify the Minister's statement by saying that certain candidates, who were not successful, asked that the figures in connection with the examination should not be published.
If I give the name of a candidate who is prepared to have the whole facts published as against the successful candidate—a case which I consider is a clear case of victimisation —will that case be inquired into openly?
If the Deputy has any case to speak about he can speak about it openly, or pass the information along and let it be inquired into. There is no use in talking of it in this vague way. Give a case and let an argument be made, but we insist that the guarantee given is not going to be broken. Deputy O'Connell knows exactly now what is being offered to him.
No. There is no use in the Minister coming along now and saying there is "willingness." What does he mean?
I said that a Select Committee would be set up to inquire into what Deputy O'Connell has described as the administration of the Act, omitting particular cases.
That is very vague.
I or somebody will bring in terms of reference which the House can have a look at, but no terms of reference will be brought forward so long as this particular piece of fatuity remains on the Table, which, as drafted, leads to a considerable amount of difficulty in understanding it. It has been explained differently by different members of the Party, but no Deputy has ventured to explain what is to happen in regard to technical appointments. Deputy de Valera passed it off in a phrase which could mean anything. If passed this Bill, as far as two sections are concerned, will destroy any good that was ever done by the old Act. The idea of sending down a panel of not less than three names, or of even confining it to three; the idea that a local authority could insist on a competitive examination for every appointment, would render the whole thing futile. It is suggested that the Bill should be got out of the way, that it should be defeated, and that after that Deputy O'Connell's amendment could be brought forward in another way. Deputy O'Connell will find, if he reads the speeches made by three persons from these benches, that he has got a very definite indication that the Committee which he wants and which he describes in his speech will be set up if this Bill is defeated.
Does the Minister suggest that he has in any way answered the case put up by Deputy Dr. Ryan in connection with the case of Dr. Pierce in Wexford? As far as I can see he kept away from it all the time. There is a very definite allegation made in this particular case that Dr. Pierce, the man in question, was brought to the Selection Board, was asked a few questions in Irish; his qualifications were not inquired into, and the appointment was given to a person who was an assistant to the Chairman of the Selection Board. That is a very definite charge, and it looks corrupt if it is not corrupt.
That charge has not been made by Deputy Ryan.
I said in answer, I think to Deputy Dr. Hennessy, or some other Deputy, I am not sure now—but I said in answer to some Deputy that in this particular case the successful candidate was well known to a member of the Selection Board.
That is the gravamen of the whole charge. What the Deputy did say was:—
They appointed a man to act as ophthalmic surgeon to their county hospital. For a couple of years he was acting in 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 were 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, enucleation 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... It may be held, perhaps, that the Wexford doctor did not have the proper qualifications.
Then the Deputy gave the doctor's qualifications. He said "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." That statement was made. Is there a case made that a worse man was appointed? It was not made by Deputy Ryan, Deputy Ryan's case——
You are making a case that there was a better man appointed. You are talking about besmirching a man's reputation. I submit this is taking away from a man's reputation. I submit that man who was working with the sanction of the Local Government Department for two and a half years and who was then turned down by a Selection Board, has had his reputation taken away.
It is not fair to say that, if a definitely better man than the man in the district is appointed. Would any Deputy himself, before that case assumes any proportion to be inquired into, give evidence that a worse man was appointed? Deputy Ryan did not even allege that; I do not think he did.
I said I did not know.
I say that the Minister for Education dealt with that.
Nobody has answered it yet.
The answer was made to the further inquiry that a general statement should be made, that the Selection Board inquired into the professional and technical qualifications of the candidates, but that their qualifications were never interfered with save on the three grounds I spoke of.
I am not alleging corruption in a general way against the Appointments Commissioners. I voted with the Labour Party for the Act because I agree with it in principle. But things like this should not be allowed to happen, where an assistant to the Chairman of the Selection Board gets a certain position. It lends colour to the rumour that there is corruption and, to say the least of it, there is no confidence in the Selection Board if things like that are allowed to occur.
The Deputy has referred twice to "things like that." The Minister for Education dealt with that. I will tell the Deputy what he said.
He does not know about it.
He does. Here is the statement he made: "The Local Appointments Commissioners there adopted the recommendation of their Board. They appointed a man who, as an expert in the opinion of the Board, very favourably outshone the other man."
Where is the proof?
There is no proof called for. Deputy Ryan has not alleged that a worse man was appointed.
Deputy Ryan said that the man was doing the work for two and a half years and did it satisfactorily.
And then he should be appointed whether the other man is better or not?
You can talk about it that way if you like and get away from the point.
Does the Minister suggest that we should be in a position to inquire into the qualifications of medical men here?
I hope not.
How are we to find out, then, the better or the worse man?
The Selection Board will find out. A professional Selection Board is appointed to find out.
Have you any proof that they do?
We cannot have any cross-examination on this matter.
May I ask Deputy Corish or Deputy Ryan if they can suggest what particular selection they would make in respect of a board for such an appointment?
I would select a different Selection Board.
If so, from what hospital?
Obviously I would not select a Selection Board from a hospital where a man was working as assistant to the Chairman of the Selection Board.
Is there any other hospital in the country to which the Deputy could go?
There are nine hospitals in Dublin, and each of them has a man attached.
Eye and ear hospitals?
No, nine hospitals.
I know that, but this is a special appointment.
Will the President not agree that this promotes distrust, when there is so much distrust around the country?
Let me put it to the Deputy that in any case where surgeons and physicians are selected to make appointments of dispensary doctors, it is practically inevitable that some member of the Board would know some of the candidates?
Knowing some of the candidates is quite a different thing from having the successful candidate an assistant to the Chairman of the Selection Board.
May I ask in that case is it the Deputy's contention that they should not select that particular candidate, and that that candidate should not get the marks he was entitled to get?
That is what it amounts to.
It does not amount to any such thing. That is the way we are met every time. That is the sort of answer we get to every charge we make.
Does Deputy Corish wish to speak?
I move the adjournment of the debate.