Last evening I stated that I opposed this amendment, and gave my reasons. Now, a non-pensionable officer connotes something more than may be thought at first sight. A pensionable officer, on the other hand, indicates that there is some stability in the position held by that officer. In other countries officers with duties corresponding to that of city manager occupy non-pensionable positions, and with very serious and sometimes disastrous results to the ratepayers. So far as we in Cork are concerned, at any rate, we do not want to have a system introduced, or even any phase of a system introduced, which may Americanise our local institutions. It does happen, or it has happened, and I suppose it will continue to happen in some of those other countries, that officials may be appointed for a short term of years, say, five to ten years, to a non-pensionable position. At the end of that period they may get a gratuity or a reward of some kind. In those countries the getting of these positions is mainly due to political influences, but so far as the citizens of Cork are concerned, we do not want to see our chief official put into a position where he will be subject to political changes. Let us assume for a moment that the Fianna Fáil Party came into power in the course of the next two or three years, and that the city manager was one who held a different political opinion from those of the Fianna Fáil administration. Under the scheme, as I visualise it now, one of the first acts of that administration would be to depose certain officers holding appointments such as that of the city commissioner, and, of course, with the swing of the political pendulum, when the Cumann na nGaedheal Party comes into office, it would depose such official appointed by the Fianna Fáil administration.
GNO PUIBLI. PUBLIC BUSINESS. - CORK CITY MANAGEMENT BILL, 1928—THIRD STAGE—(RESUMED).
What about a Labour Government?
Well, Labour would be above doing anything like that.
No jobbery whatever.
I indicated last evening the reasons which actuated me in opposing this amendment. It was difficult, of course, to separate this section from the section following, that is, Section 10, and I find it very difficult to keep in order, notwithstanding the generosity of the Ceann Comhairle, from time to time. I find it very difficult to keep within the terms of this amendment or, in fact, within the terms of the whole section. I want to emphasise this point, at any rate, that if we in Cork get a city manager appointed, or if we appoint a city manager, we want to ensure that his position will be stabilised, and that he shall be a pensionable officer. I have another amendment to the Bill down at a later stage which suggests that the city manager should hold office for ten years, and when I come to that amendment I will give my reasons, reasons which I hope will prove acceptable to the House. However, I want to say that so far as our party are concerned at any rate, we intend to put on no Whips on this amendment. We believe, or most of us believe, that the office should be pensionable.
Unfortunately I was not here for a great part of the discussion on this amendment. It seems to me that the merits of pensionable and non-pensionable managers have not been discussed as fully as they might. At least from what I have heard from some of my colleagues whom I have asked about the discussions, and from what I have heard here myself, sufficient attention has not been paid to the matter and I would like before it is voted upon to bring a couple of considerations before the Deputies here. I understood that the object of this Bill was to replace committees by a manager and that the very name of manager suggested business capacity of a certain type. That idea came from experiments that were tried in cities in the United States. The whole idea was to replace those committees by a business manager who would eliminate a good deal of the waste that takes place and more effectively manage the city services. If that is really the fundamental idea, then I think we ought not to agree to have a glorified town clerk put into the position. If the idea is to save committees from this work and to have a permanent officer there all the time, like a permanent civil servant, then we might have chosen a different name and we might have done the whole thing by adding it to the present functions of the town clerk. I see no reason whatever for creating the new appointment. The only excuse for the new appointment is that you want a different type of individual, the type of man that would be put in charge of a large business concern as manager. Now, no business concern, I think, would engage a manager at its head and give him anything like the powers that it is proposed to give to the manager here and regard him as a permanent officer. He would be a permanent officer if he be re-appointed, if he deserves to be re-appointed. When we think of what actually takes place we all know that the custom is to retain officers long after their services warrant their retention. There is naturally a dislike in public bodies to change officers even when the public services would benefit greatly by the change. I think we ought not to add to the natural conservatism there is in matters of this kind by making it pensionable. If the post is one in which you have engaged a man with certain qualifications for five years, with the right existing in the council to reappoint the same man if they so choose, and if you give them the opportunity if they wish to get rid of the man to give a gratuity or a bonus corresponding to his services, then you will get the type of man you want. That would mean that you will probably have to pay a higher salary. I would favour under this Bill a comparatively higher salary for that man than the salary paid to a permanent servant. It would mean a higher salary paid to a special expert for a certain period, and if he were to give satisfaction you would not lose by giving him a higher salary. I know that it would be said that a man appointed for a short period is likely to court re-appointment by playing up to the members of the council or doing certain favours for certain sections of the council. That is possible, but I think it is much more likely that he will try to get the confidence of the council as a whole by giving good service. It is a much easier, a much safer and a better way of operating than the other, and, in general anyway, it is much more likely to happen that he would try to merit re-appointment by rendering good service, whereas in the case of a pensionable officer he very often gets lax. It is in human nature to take things easy and it is the experience of most people that when you have men in permanent positions they do tend to take things easy and not be as active as they would be if there were a definite question of their dismissal or re-appointment on their merits.
Balancing the advantages and disadvantages, and considering the whole idea contained in the Bill, I think it is a great mistake to make this particular office a permanent and pensionable one. I do not see why a scheme should not be drawn up under which, if a man acts for five years and is not reappointed, a gratuity could be given him. Perhaps a man would have service for ten or fifteen years; then in that case, after two or three reappointments and a long period of service, that man might be entitled to a pension. I do not see why a scheme could not be drawn up on these lines. My amendment is intended not so much to mean that the man is to be non-pensionable as that he should not be regarded as of the pensionable class. If the amendment were accepted, perhaps it might be re-drafted so as to leave it open later on for the drawing up of a scheme by which you would have gratuities for short periods, and a pensionable scheme if the reappointment covered a period over ten years. I hope Deputies will not hastily decide to make this office a pensionable one. If that is the view, then there is nothing in the Bill except the creation of a new office—a new job, some would say. It would mean making the new officer a sort of glorified town clerk, a second town clerk, and it would mean giving to the second town clerk all the arbitrary powers contained in the Bill.
We could see Deputy de Valera's amendment to better effect if we knew what salary he proposes for the city manager who would be appointed for five years.
I would have no hesitation whatever in leaving that matter to the council. If I were a member of the council and considered that the work was being done in a businesslike way by the city manager, then I would be prepared to pay him on business lines. I would pay him a salary commensurate with the salaries paid in businesses where a similar amount of work was carried on.
How much would that be?
Personally, I do not know enough about the scales of salaries in such business concerns to indicate the figure, but I have no hesitation in saying that it would be well over the amount I have suggested for Ministers. That is the point.
Deputy Anthony has to a very large extent disposed of the arguments put forward by Deputy de Valera. I have made a case against the amendment already. The proposal is that the manager shall be an officer of the Corporation. We believe it is necessary to have that in order to get the type of person we are looking for. We believe it is necessary to give him the kind of security that alone will attract that type. There is perfect provision in the Bill to enable the council, by a majority of two-thirds of the members, to get rid of the manager in order to supersede him when they want to do so, provided they are able to persuade the Minister that the thing may reasonably be done. A manager removed from office in this particular way inside ten years will not become entitled to a pension, but he would be entitled on the merits of the case, and subject to the Minister's decision, to a gratuity. There is no proposal to take in a manager, hold him for five years and then dispense with his services, giving him a pension, or keeping him for eight, nine or ten years; but if he gives service for more than ten years, then he would be entitled, on being removed from office, to a pension. As between the proposal here and what Deputy de Valera would contemplate for his particular type of man, there is no difference except this: Deputy de Valera would require a vote of confidence in the man after every five years and we would keep the man in his position until there was a vote of no confidence in him. I think ours is the much more reasonable attitude to take up on the matter.
In the ordinary way I should oppose this or agree with the amendment, but I find I cannot, having regard to the powers that are given this manager who is really not the servant of the people of Cork but their master, and having regard to the fact that he has complete control of the finances of the Corporation.
That is not so.
Also, he is paymaster and he signs for all the payments.
The Deputy might as well say that the Paymaster-General of the State is the man in complete control of the finances of the State and that he is the master.
This manager makes the contracts and it must be remembered that he also goes into office without a bond to secure him or give any security so that the council would be indemnified against any possible defalcations in the accounts. I think it would be a most dangerous thing to have a man without the prospect of a pension, because otherwise he might be tempted to secure himself for the future. For that reason I will have to support this.
The Minister has put the issue before the House fairly clearly when he says that under his proposal the manager remains in office until the council passes a definite vote of no confidence in him. Under the arrangement suggested in the amendment he would be required to secure a vote of confidence at regular intervals every five years. The Minister claims his system is the more reasonable one. It is undoubtedly from the point of view of the manager, but surely the Dáil is not going to put the point of view of the manager before the general interests of Cork City?
I stated here last night that under either system you will be able to deal with the man who is so inefficient that no council could take the responsibility of keeping him in office. Any man who makes a mess of things will be sacked under either system. But what I do claim is that the system provided for in the Bill does not meet the case of the manager who is just not good enough, but who is not thoroughly inefficient. —the man who manages to muddle through everything. The man in that position will always be able to avoid a definite vote of no confidence from the council, and he will continue in office from time to time, merely getting through the business without absolutely making a mess of things. We are engaged on an important experiment. We have had no experience as to what a city manager can or cannot do in the life of a city. It is quite obvious that the manager can undoubtedly affect the prosperity of a city to a very large extent, and we cannot take the risk of a person of mediocre ability being placed in the position. We want to see in that position of city manager the best available man. Irrespective of whether the manager himself thinks the terms of his appointment reasonable or not, we have to have a system that will enable us to get from time to time the best that is available. A man may give very good service for five years and only poor service for the second five. If, at the end of that second period, there is a better man available, the way should be clear for the council to appoint the better man without having to take the rather drastic course of passing a vote of no confidence in the existing manager. Both in the interests of the scheme itself and the City of Cork, in which it is going to be tried, I think a periodical review of the qualifications of the manager is the better system.
I am just as much opposed to the method by which it is sought to appoint the city manager as Deputy de Valera, but I am in the habit of facing facts. This House has, by a majority of four, inflicted an indignity on the citizens of Cork, and we will have to put up with it for a while. But I certainly can promise that we will agitate until we can get rid of the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel.
Does the Government surrender?
We are prepared to surrender if——
Let the Deputy proceed.
My opposition is as strong as that of Deputy de Valera, although I do differ with him on fundamentals, and even on very important parts of this Bill. I want to register my protest here and now against the fact that, on a matter of social legislation—if it were a big political issue that was at stake I would have no objection—the Government Party were whipped up to vote solidly without having listened to any arguments for or against. Yesterday only a few Deputies were in the House to carry on the business, although on the previous day we had it laid down by the President and other Ministers, including the Minister for Local Government, that we were here to listen to and be convinced by argument. Yet we have Government supporters tramping up the moment the Division Bell rings in support of this Bill.
We are all convinced by Deputy Anthony on this amendment.
I agree, but at the same time I want to register my protest. I do not want to have it appear that because of my opposition to this particular amendment I favour the Bill as a whole.
Tá.
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Holt, Samuel.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl.
- Aird, William P.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margaret.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thomas Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony. Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.