I was addressing myself on the adjournment last night to this amendment, and I do not wish to weary the House with a recital of what I said already regarding the work of the Cork Corporation. I referred to that yesterday; I pointed out what their duties would be, and I will conclude by referring to a statement made by Deputy Flinn last night, that I should withdraw a statement which he attributed to me, that the whole time of the council would be taken up in discussing dismissed officials and the merits of their cases. I never made that statement. The only person who made that statement was the Deputy himself, when he asked me to withdraw it. If it is his desire to know what I said with regard to the council, it was that this new organisation, not being concerned with the details of administration, would have much more time at their command to examine the administration of the city by the manager, but that they will be responsible for policy. There is no necessity for going into the arguments which have been repeated over and over again by those speaking for and against the amendment.
CORK CITY MANAGEMENT BILL, 1928—THIRD STAGE (Resumed).
On what amendment is the President speaking?
36.
It has nothing to do with what he has just been talking about.
I was simply answering comments that were regarded as points in the course of the discussion. I have stated the objection to the amendment. Deputy de Valera admits a weakness in it that could be remedied, and I think that there is really no case whatever for it.
In dealing with this amendment last night the President turned on to personalities, and suggested that because Deputy Flinn's name does not appear in this list of amendments he was only pretending to take an interest in the Cork City Management Bill. I know that to be untrue. Deputy Flinn spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill, and from that time until now, when there has been any question in connection with the Cork City Management Bill under discussion with us, Deputy Flinn has always been there, maintaining privately in the Party counsels the view that he has always expressed in public, that he was anxious that this Bill should give good, sound, democratic government and effective management to Cork. I say that, because it is right that when attempts are made to misrepresent a representative like that, those who know otherwise should state the truth. The fact is that all these amendments have originated in this way: We first of all discussed the whole proposal in our Party, as it was wise for us to do, in order that we might take joint counsel and be able to put forward the best scheme that we could as an alternative to the scheme that was proposed in the Bill. We decided on the general principles, and the details in the amendments to accord with these principles were worked out in our committee, of which Deputy Flinn and the Lord Mayor of Cork were both members, and I think it is true to say that the draft of the amendments were last in the hands of these two Deputies before being sent in.
I hope the President will begin to examine or think over statements before he makes them, that he will give up this attempt at misrepresentation, or that he will begin to think it is not fair to form rash judgments.
As regards the merits of the proposal, we have already indicated very clearly why we think the period of office should be only five years, and that the manager should be regarded, if he is going to be manager in the sense we have in mind, rather as an expert business manager, that he should be clearly in a position in which he would be appointed by the council, that nobody could say that he was imposed upon them, whether he be the first manager or a subsequent manager, that he should be distinctly their servant, capable of being removed by them, as well as being appointed, and that he should be responsible to them in the first instance for the management of the city. The question of the way in which these amendments were drawn up is really a petty one when we think of the principles that are involved. Everybody knows that if these amendments were carried they would alter the character of the Bill, and that a number of other amendments would have to be made. If the Executive Council or the Minister in charge is prepared to accept these amendments we are prepared to take full responsibility for drafting such amendments for the Report Stage as will fit in with the scheme. But nobody is going to spend considerable time and labour over amendments which he believes, from the attitude of the Government, are not going to be accepted, which will never appear and never become law, but be consigned to the waste paper basket. If Deputies on the opposite side of the House want to see care taken with amendments when there is a big scheme of this kind proposed, they must change their general attitude towards proposals brought forward from this side. If the very fact that they are proposed from this side means that they are to be condemned by the other side, then they can be certain that no one is going to bother about details of the amendments, and that we are going to be satisfied with bringing forward an amendment which will get the principle put to the test. There are two parts of this amendment, first dealing with the office, and secondly the mode of appointment. I have indicated that if this were passed the mode of appointment I would suggest would be that, instead of the Civil Service Commissioners, which would probably mean further legal action to make it possible for them to take over this matter. I would be quite content to leave it to the Appointments Commissioners, provided a panel of three was sent down, so that the Cork Council would have an opportunity of choosing the man they want.
I think the Deputy gets deeper and deeper into the mud whenever he goes to explain an amendment. This is, we are advised, his honest attempt to get fair consideration for the proposal.
So it is.
Let us examine it. The Deputy wants to examine it in that light. A Bill introduced by the Deputy was rejected last summer, having the same proposal as there is there—the Civil Service Commissioners and three names—yet knowing full well that the decision of the House was against it, the Deputy puts this down, and then invites us to come to the conclusion that any infirmity in his amendment is due to the fact that it has not been considered——
I have known the President to change his mind.
——that it had not been considered so carefully in view of the circumstances, but that he thought it could be afterwards rectified. As regards the proposal that the Civil Service Commissioners should appoint this person or send down three names, that has been already defeated. The appointment by the council is apparently gone also, because of the rejection of the Deputy's Bill, and the passage of the Local Appointments Act, and the Deputy, pretending that his honest desire is to get the opinion of the House on this, certainly takes away entirely from his recollection what has transpired during the last few months.
I know perfectly well what transpired. This is a new office. You have nothing in any of those Bills about a manager of a city. You are introducing a new measure, and this type of appointment could not have been in mind.
Before this debate is wound up, I would remind the President that he stands in the same position with regard to Cork as Deputy Flinn. If he examines the amendments he will find that his name is not there any more than Deputy Flinn's. I think the Minister for Local Government was the only one on the Government file to propose any amendments. The same thing happened on this side. All the amendments are in one name.
Higher posts than these are filled by the Local Appointments Commissioners.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margaret.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thomas Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Coburn, James.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Holt, Samuel.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
If Deputy Anthony desires a separate decision on amendment 37, I will obtain it for him, but I think the matter has already been debated on amendment 36.
I am not moving amendment 37.
I move amendment 38: In sub-section (6), page 6, line 21, before the word "Minister" to insert the words "council with the sanction of the."
In moving this amendment I would only be repeating myself if I were to advance arguments which would strengthen the functions of the elected body that will form the new council. The object of the amendment is to preserve to the council the right which the old Cork Corporation had up to the introduction of the Commissioner system. Now we are going to have a Corporation in name. I want to ensure not alone that the new body will have at least portion of the powers of the old Corporation, but also that you will get a desirable type of citizen to come forward for election. If the members of the newly elected council are to be mere automatons, you will not attract the right kind of citizen to act as corporator. We have heard in this House, and outside of it, many strictures passed on certain classes of corporators and public men who have not done much credit to this country, or for that matter who would not have done credit to any country. It is for that reason that I have endeavoured all along to secure that the new Corporation will be a body representative of public opinion in whom the public of Cork will have some confidence. If they are to be a body worthy of the confidence of the citizens of Cork, they should at least have not alone some controlling power, but should have vested in them certain administrative powers which would render the position of a member one that would be attractive to the best class of citizen. I take it that it is the object of the Minister to make the new Corporation of Cork a workable body, a body for which the citizens will entertain some regard and respect. I submit to the House that if most of the powers of administration, particularly in connection with finance, are to be reserved to the manager instead of being reserved to the council, you are not going to attract the right type of citizen to administer the municipal affairs of the City of Cork. That is my reason for moving the amendment.
When we were discussing amendment 25 in Committee I resisted an amendment, in part 5, with regard to reserved functions and the determination of the amount of salary or remuneration of the Lord Mayor, which proposed to put in the city manager as well as the Lord Mayor. I explained at that time the reason why I did so. To a certain extent I feel that the two amendments here fall under Section 25, but I understand from you, sir, that there can be a further discussion on them. As I have already said, to do as the amendment proposes would be taking away from the Minister the powers he already has with regard to important offices. Under Section 15 of the Local Government (Temporary Provision) Act, 1923, the Minister has power to fix over the heads of the local bodies salaries of officers to which that section refers, and under the Public Health Act, 1928, he has the power over local bodies to fix the salaries of the sanitary officers, town clerks, and medical officers. In the case of officers like the county surveyor, the assistant county surveyor, and the medical superintendent of asylums he has the same power. We are not taking in this particular Bill any more powers than the Minister has with regard to other important appointments throughout the country. To accept this amendment would mean that the council could fix the salary of the city manager irrespective of the wishes or judgment of the Minister. I do not think that would be advisable. I have already explained that the Minister is in a better position to know what class of salary should be paid to officers of the class of city manager. He is more in touch with the salaries paid to high officials in the Civil Service, and in business also. The suggestion that you are not going to get the right type of representative in the council in Cork if you do not allow the council to fix the city manager's salary I do not think is just to any one in Cork.
The Minister very conveniently forgets the amendment is that the salary shall be fixed by the council with the sanction of the Minister. It is not a question of leaving the Minister completely out of it. The Minister will have an opportunity of protesting and of refusing to agree if the salary, in his opinion, is not a fair and right one. I cannot see why there is any objection on his part to allowing the council in the first instance to indicate what would be a reasonable salary. After all, the council will have to take account of the state of their finances in general and of the particular type of work they want done. As I have said, it is quite obvious the Minister has taken a different view of the type of manager and of his functions in general from that we had hoped he would take, and a view which induced a number of our members, and induced myself personally, in the first instance to give this Bill a Second Reading.
We see now the type of Bill that is going to emerge, and, though I voted for the Second Reading, if the Bill is going to work out, as would seem to be the case from the attitude of the Minister towards propositions we brought forward, then some of us who voted for the Second Reading will vote against the Bill in its final form, because we think it is most unjust and unfair that a man should be imposed like this on the council, that the council should have to take the man given to them, and that they should have no choice in his selection quite irrespective of the type of work they may want him to do. They have no voice, or very little, in his removal, for even if two-thirds choose to remove him, yet the Minister might refuse to do it. Then they have no voice in the salary to be paid to him. Therefore, all the criticism that has been levelled here, and which for a time I thought might be extravagant, with regard to this Bill seems to be justified —that what is going to happen is that the Minister will have a special servant of his own there who is going in his name to control the administrative functions of the Corporation. If that be the meaning, I for one am not going to vote for it. It is altogether against the view of local government which I have.
That is rather wide of this particular amendment. We are getting a succession of Second Reading debate speeches.
I admit I did, perhaps, get outside the immediate purpose of the amendment, but I want to indicate that this further step is taking away from the council any real opportunity of expressing their will in matters that are vital, such as the matter of finance and the type of manager they want. All these things are going to be controlled from the top. Therefore I am beginning to be convinced it is not extravagant to say that this Bill is simply to be a sort of cover, just a mere pretence of democracy. There is no intention to give local government at all, and the practical details of administration which matter so much are really going to be outside the control of the council. Here we have this particular proposal in the Bill, that the Minister should fix the salary of the manager, bearing out that view.
There is too much misjudgment on very little ground as to what the result of the Bill will be in the particular way in which we present it. I consider it a very small matter from the point of view of the council and its powers that it should be able to fix the salary of the manager. I consider that it would be very undesirable that the salary of the manager should be a matter of dispute between the council and the Minister. We had it suggested yesterday that it was very important that Cork should be developed on the south rather than on the north side. I am very anxious that the minds and energies of the council should not be taken away from real practical problems, such as that, in order to fight between themselves, or with the Minister, as to what the salary of the manager should be. The Minister for Local Government for the time being must accept big responsibility in seeing that the administrative and executive machine in the hands of the council will be rigid and perfectly toned up. It is important in connection with that that the Minister should be able to say what the salary of the manager should be, and that there should be no margin of ground for a fight or quarrel between the Minister and the council on that point. It is in keeping with the outlook which we have of our responsibilities, to see that the machine at the hands of the council is a good one, that we are leaving out the council in this particular matter and that we say clearly that the remuneration paid to the manager shall be that which is fixed by the Minister.
During the course of the discussion on the Committee Stage of this Bill we have clashed with the Party opposite on many points of detail, and, generally speaking, the Government succeeded in carrying through its proposals by the weight of the majority behind it rather than by the strength of the arguments it advanced in favour of its proposals. I do not want to digress, but I would like to add that we know that the majority included——
This is the kind of thing that could be said of every amendment to every Bill that comes before us—to examine the majority by which it was passed.
It is not——
I do not want to hear the Deputy. I want to hear Deputy Lemass.
On this particular amendment the fight between us is an attempt on our part to preserve the last, and probably the least important, of the provisions which we thought were necessary to secure for Cork City some vestige of control over its manager. The Dáil has already appointed the first manager, and has appointed him for life. We think that that function should be given to the Council of Cork, but the manager has been appointed by a vote of this House, composed perhaps of a number of Deputies who are not fully conversant with what Cork is. We have decided that not merely is Cork not to appoint its manager, but it cannot dismiss him without the consent of the Minister. We are now coming to the last point in the relation of the Council and the manager—namely, as to the Council deciding what it is going to pay the manager. The Minister says "No." He says that this amendment seems to take away the power which he has in regard to most of the important officers in the Local Government service. That is not correct. The amendment seeks to give him the same powers in relation to the manager as he has in relation to other important Local Government officers. I would remind the Minister of what he said himself. He said that he has power under Section 15, under the Act of 1923, to fix, if necessary, over the heads of local authorities the salary of any officer to whom the section applies. He also says that he has similar power under the Public Health Act of 1898 to fix the salaries, if necessary, over the heads of local authorities of any sanitary officer and dispensary doctor. There is no "if necessary" in this Bill, and it is to put in such words in the Bill that the amendment is put down.
We think that the question of remuneration should rest with the Council, and that they should decide what the salary should be, subject to the sanction of the Minister. It means that in the last resort the Minister's word is going to prevail, and that he will have, if necessary, power to fix the salary. What he proposes to do is to take powers which he has not got in relation to other important officers. The reason which he advances for taking these powers is that he is in a better position than a local body to decide what the salary of the city manager should be. How does he consider himself in a better position than a local body to decide what the salary of a city manager should be? Is it because he has a more accurate and wider knowledge of the financial resources of the Council or of the economic conditions of the city concerned? No, but because he is more familiar with the salaries paid in the Civil Service. It is not a question of economic conditions. It is a question of the remuneration which a city manager should have. In other words, the Government are determined to take the same attitude in regard to the salary of a city manager as they do in relation to those of civil servants. It is not what the country and what Cork can afford; it is not a question of what economic conditions exist from time to time in the country or city; it is not a question of the paying power of the taxpayer, but it is a question of what remuneration a city manager should have, in the opinion of the Minister. I think that no case can be made for this section in the Bill. I think if the Minister is only anxious to preserve the powers which he has in existing Acts in relation to other Local Government officers he will have them, even if this amendment is accepted. I think that the Minister's opposition to this amendment is due to wrong thinking on a fundamental matter which affects the whole body of the people— namely, whether the salaries of public servants are to be fixed by our ability to pay or by what the Minister thinks should be paid. There is no doubt that if the views of the people were taken into account in a matter of this kind, they would say quite definitely that it is only their ability to pay that should be taken into consideration in fixing the remuneration which any public servant should receive.
On the question of fixing the salary of the manager of the Cork City Council, I do not see anything very reactionary or very revolutionary in the Minister having the power to fix that salary. It is all very well to talk of the incapacity of a local council to pay certain salaries, but it is more important that a salary should be fixed which would secure the services of a good and capable official. If a council is at low water the appointment of an efficient official at a salary that would command efficiency is of far more importance than the question of the capacity of a corporation to pay its officials. That efficient official would, I believe, be the means of enhancing the paying capacity of the council. I do not know that I have, from my experience, any great reason to be satisfied with the right of Ministers, say, of Local Government, to fix the salary. It was always very difficult, though they had the power, to get them to fix that salary. Partly the reason was that they did not want to get into collision with the local authorities. They generally were willing to admit that the salary was inadequate, but they did not care to interfere. The result was that incapable persons often were appointed with, I might say, disastrous consequences to the councils for whom they were appointed. In the circumstances I am quite satisfied that it is as well for the Minister to do in the beginning what he has power now to do in the end, and fix a reasonable salary so that the best official can be appointed.
I would like to stress the point put by Deputy de Valera as to the cumulative effect of all these invasions on our control——
The Deputy must confine himself absolutely to the amendment.
I am.
I am not going to hear anything about the cumulative effect of the different amendments on this particular amendment. I indicated to Deputy de Valera that I thought Second Reading speeches could not be made. I heard Deputy de Valera, but I do not propose to hear any other Deputy on similar lines.
Perhaps I might be allowed to make a slight correction in the matter to which Deputy Dr. Hennessy referred. He spoke about the disastrous effects of appointments by local bodies. I feel sure that he was referring to appointments of members of his own profession.
Perhaps he was referring to some of the Commissioners appointed by the Government.
I would like Deputies who are supporting this amendment to ask themselves whether they would wish that the Minister should stand out of the ring in the matter of local appointments and allow local bodies to fix salaries and wages.
With the sanction of the Minister.
That is not the amendment.
I am frank when I say that I am not satisfied to allow the question of the salary of the manager to stand as a point of quarrel between the council in Cork and the Minister. I consider it to be more satisfactory to have it as it is.
Why not remove all the other opportunities for a quarrel?
I wonder if the Minister is going to remove all causes of quarrel if he sends along his Bill with the salary of the manager affixed. That is hardly a good method of getting the confidence of the new Corporation. If fifteen elected representatives of the Cork Council are to get this Bill handed to them and they are told that they are to have a manager who will execute their decisions and no suggestion from them as to the salary the manager is to be paid will be accepted, I suggest that is not a way to remove the causes of quarrel. It is a way of destroying confidence between the Minister and the new Corporation. Again, if Deputy Dr. Hennessy is expressing the views of the Government, in stating that the real reason for making the provision is in order that the salary may be a high one, that also will not make the Bill a very acceptable one. Frankly, it looks as narrow-minded and as reactionary a provision as could possibly be inserted in any measure, that fifteen elected representatives of Cork City are not even to have the right of considering what salary the manager who is working under them will earn or will deserve. That that is to be fixed by the Minister in Dublin looks like centralisation gone mad. Again. I would suggest that though the Minister may be perfectly confident that the present Government will do justice and will fix a right and proper salary for the position, he should I think realise that this legislation is going to prevail with regard to other measures that may be passed when the Government of which he is a member is not in power. Though the present Government could not do wrong—they have never erred and could not err—the Pope only becomes infallible when he is made Pope, but the present Executive Council were born infallible—there is no guarantee that the Ministry which will follow will have similar opinions.
They will find that responsibility is a great help to infallibility.
If a coming Ministry has not the same gift for determining what is a right and proper salary for important and key positions throughout the country, will there not be a most unfortunate state of affairs created? The arguments I have heard in support of the proposal were as unconvincing as anyone could wish to hear. I suggest again that in the interests of the Bill the Minister might even at the last moment reconsider his decision.
There is one point to which I would like to direct the attention of Deputies. This appointment has been in existence for four years. A person has been drawing a salary for four years. The work will not exactly be the same. He will not be responsible for policy, but I think it is a perfectly reasonable provision that the Minister should have the power of fixing the salary. The whole scheme hangs together—the responsibility of the manager, the responsibility of the council, and the question as to whether this Bill should not start them off with a given set of circumstances and with the whole scheme planned out. Has any member of a county council power even in fixing a county council salary? They get them delivered to them. Some of them were fixed twenty years ago and they did not think that an imposition. In this measure we seek to create the same position as regards the council. There is nothing unusual about it. One would expect it to be done in a business-like way.
Do I take it that the President's purpose is to fix the salary of the first manager and that he is not concerned with the second?
I should say that the same thing should happen. It should be almost a statutory arrangement.
I take it from the President that we are going to make an appointment made four years ago. We are going to reappoint the same man to do less work.
No, no.
Then the position of manager is going to be precisely the same. He is going to do the same work as he did before?
No.
This is a question of who is to fix the salary.
The President raised the question of salary on the ground that this man was no longer to have responsibility for policy.
The Deputy will have to speak to the amendment about the salary of the manager.
I am speaking to it.
The Deputy will have to speak to it according to my judgment, and no other.
I am not allowed to reply to the President.
The Deputy will have to speak to this amendment.
I will not speak to it at all.
Very good.
Tá.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Coburn, James.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Holt, Samuel.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen,
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl.
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margaret.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thomas Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
I move amendment 43:—
In sub-section (7), line 30, to delete the word "section" and to insert in lieu thereof the word "Act."
This is just a drafting amendment.
I move amendment 47:—
In sub-section (1), line 49, after the word "manager" to insert the words "with the approval of the Corporation."
It is only a formal amendment.
This amendment would mean that the manager has to get the approval of the council for giving instructions to the other officers of the Corporation as to what they shall do and how they shall do it.
I move amendment 48:—
In sub-section (1), line 54, to delete the word "absolute" and to add at the end of the sub-section the words: "Provided that in cases where the manager decides to remove from office or reduce the salary or wages of any employee such employee may appeal to the council for a reconsideration of the decision and the council may call upon the manager to justify his action."
I accept the first part of the amendment to delete the word "absolute." With regard to the remainder, I have undertaken to consider the question raised in paragraph (k) of amendment 26, in the name of Deputy de Valera, where it is proposed that general regulations concerning the appointment, promotion, and removal of officers, etc., be inserted as part of the reserved functions, with a view to an amendment of the Bill, and that will cover Deputy Anthony's amendment.
The Deputy will be in the same position on the Report Stage, except that he may see a new section dealing with regulations governing the relations of the manager and staff.
That does not bind me to accepting it?
I move amendment 53:—
In sub-section (2), line 65, to delete all the words after the word "corporation."
I accept the amendment.
May I ask the Minister to take into consideration in fixing the remuneration that at least the minimum wage should be fixed by the council with the sanction of the Minister?
Does that arise with regard to the general offices?
"Subject to the provisions, etc., the manager shall consider and decide all such questions as may from time to time arise in relation to the service, remuneration, privileges and superannuation," etc. I also suggest that, when fixing remuneration, regard should be had to a minimum wage, and I ask the Minister to bear that in mind.
Yes.
I move:—
To add to sub-section (1), line 8, the following words "countersigned by the Lord Mayor."
The point is, the manager here is acting on behalf of the council, and his act would be held to bind the council. It is only fair that some member of the council should countersign.
The Bill reserves certain functions for the corporation, and gives the responsibility to the manager to carry out other functions of the corporation. He is solely responsible for carrying out these functions, subject to the general review of his work by the council. He issues a signed order in respect of everything which, if done by the council, would require a resolution. That signed order is kept in a special book or books for the purpose, and these books come up before the council at their meeting for inspection. The amendment would bring in the Lord Mayor every time the manager had to sign an order dealing with those portions of his work. It would bring the Lord Mayor into the manager's business. It would be a trouble to the Lord Mayor and himself, and would to a certain extent take away from the manager's shoulders the complete responsibility that rested upon him. The Lord Mayor and council will have an opportunity at all their meetings of seeing the orders that have been issued from the time of their last meeting. It is simply the formal act of the manager in respect of certain things of recording his acts.
I think there has been a slight confusion there in that amendment between the reserved functions and the manager acting as executive officer in case of the reserved functions where executive acts might be taken. The intention of the amendment was to confine it to where the manager was executive officer in connection with certain reserved functions. In that case I think I will not move it.
I think it applies entirely to the manager.
I see that. It was not intended to apply to acts which in his own sphere he would be taking. I will not move it. I want it examined to see that where he is acting for the corporation in the case of reserved functions it will be countersigned by the Lord Mayor in these cases.
I move "to delete sub-section 8." I want to point out that in this section the pretended or ultimate control over the manager by the council in matters of expenditure, through the control of the estimates, is really a myth. If you read the section carefully and the context you will find that it is within the power of the council to exceed the estimate, assuming that they will get an overdraft from their bankers. Assuming that the council pass their estimates in March and that the manager, say into October, can spend as much as he likes and exceed that estimate, what position will the council occupy then? Can they cry a halt to the manager's activities? Will it be in their power? According to this Bill, so far as we have gone with it, he will not feel called upon at any time to make a full disclosure of his expenditure to the council. I will ask the House to consider very seriously this clause and what it enables the manager to do with the finances of the city. It is also quite possible that the council may not know one word about the activities of the manager in this connection until they are well into the period during which these estimates should be struck, so that I am not at all satisfied with the provisions in this particular section, and for the reasons I have now advanced I move its deletion. You are giving altogether too much power to, not to say placing too much confidence in, an individual. We are all human. I do not want to cast any aspersions on the present occupant of the city commissionership. I hope we will keep that absent from our deliberations. But there is always that possibility. I am endeavouring to point out the weakness of this particular clause and hope the clause will be eliminated.
The points Deputy Anthony draws attention to are important but have nothing to do with the sub-section that he proposes should be deleted. In reply to what he said in regard to the overdraft, no overdraft is permissible without the sanction of the council and the Minister. With regard to the full disclosure at suitable times to the council as to the financial position, that is a matter I will give consideration to, to see that there shall be no difficulty with regard to that. When it comes to the deletion of this particular section we have to read it and no phraseology that I can get formally or make myself can make the position clearer than it is here. If we take sub-section (7)—
(7) The Council shall, at the rates meeting of the Council held in every year, consider and may amend or modify the estimate of expenses prepared for their consideration at such meeting, and the Council shall, by resolution, adopt such estimate of expenses, etc.
That is, they may amend or modify. There is nothing in sub-section (8) except, following along sub-section (7), which says the council may amend or modify the estimate, that they shall delay to do that for fourteen days, but may do it then. They shall delay if the manager makes objections against their doing it, and states that he considers it prejudices the proper management of the affairs of the city. But it only imposes on them a restriction to delay for fourteen days in taking action, when the manager at a rates meeting formally tells them that such modifications as they propose to make in the estimates are prejudicial to the proper management of the city. That is all that is implied in the section.
Would the Minister tell us what advantage it is thought will be gained by the sub-section? The council may amend or modify the estimate at a rates meeting, and the purpose of this sub-section is merely to provide, if the manager objects to their doing so, that they must wait fourteen days before making the modification. Is it, as some people suggest, for the purpose of allowing the manager to get in touch with the Minister, so that the Minister might put machinery in motion for the suppression of the council? If that is the purpose of the sub-section, and if the council have power to modify or amend—if they are the deciding authority—it appears to me that it is unnecessary that they should have to wait fourteen days before carrying their wishes into effect. I would be glad if the Minister would explain what are the advantages.
There are days set apart for certain acts leading up to the striking of the rate. On a particular date a decision is taken. That decision fixes the rate and binds subsequent decisions. We will suppose for a moment that £40,000 was required for the cleansing of the city, and that at a meeting of the council, which was attended by, say, two-thirds of the members, somebody proposed that a reduction be made in that estimate of £8,000, leaving only £32,000. In case that decision is come to there is no possible chance of subsequently finding a sufficient sum of money to provide for the cleansing of the city. This particular sub-section gives the manager an opportunity of directing the attention of the whole of the council to the danger of not giving him a sufficient sum of money in respect of any particular service, or of drawing attention to such modifications in the rates as would prejudice the administration of the city during the twelve months. It simply gives an opportunity for reconsideration of some decision which, if taken, could not subsequently be altered, and which would seriously prejudice the business of the city.
I take it the sub-section is merely to provide for the notification of absent members that important business is to be done?
It may mean more than that. It gives an opportunity for public attention being directed to it and of having it more carefully considered in all its bearings before a final decision is taken.
Would it not be just as simple to provide, as all members of the council will have copies of the estimates in their possession before the rates meeting, that any proposal to reduce or alter the estimates should appear in a formal amendment of which notice will be given to the members of the council?
The position will be that members coming to that meeting will not hear the discussion of the pros and cons of the proposal for a reduction and will not hear the manager's case. Remember we are dealing with circumstances in which proposals are made for a reduction which, in the opinion of the manager, would seriously prejudice the efficient or economic performance of the duties of the corporation. The manager's exposition with regard to his estimate and the proposed expenditure for the twelve months will not be heard by the council until they come to that meeting and, obviously, where a serious difference occurs between the manager and the council both the manager and the council ought to have time to think over it. It would enable the manager to review the future of his particular plans in the light of what he has heard the council say and it would enable the council to review, in their own individual minds, the position that the manager had put forward.
I move:—
In sub-section (1), lines 37 and 38, to delete the words and figures in brackets "(other than a county scheme prepared under the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923 (No. 9 of 1923).)"
I think I explained on the Second Reading of this Bill, in connection with this particular section, that because of the amount of money that was expended by the Board of Health under the county scheme that it was desirable that the persons who would be nominated by the Corporation to the Board of Health would be persons who were members of the council. On further going into that, I also find that it is desirable to establish the same position with regard to the mental hospital. It was the practice that certain members of the mental hospital board were nominated by the Corporation, and of these members a certain proportion were members of the Corporation.
I want to retain the position that the council will nominate to the Mental Hospital Board its proper proportion of members, who will also be members of the Corporation. Amendments 59 and 60 run together. Fifty-nine is a deletion, and I make provision in sub-section (b) (amendment 60) in the case of the mental hospital, and in sub-section (c) in the case of the Board of Health. We then get back to sub-section (a). The Cork Corporation nominates persons on the Cork Harbour Board. Members of the Cork Harbour Board are required by statute to have certain qualifications. Sub-section (a) of amendment 60 safeguards the position until such time as the Tribunal investigating the position of the ports has reported and their reports and recommendations have been fully considered. It retains the position that those persons nominated by the Cork Council to sit on the Cork Harbour Board must be persons who will have the statutory qualifications that are by other statutes required by persons who are to be members of the Cork Harbour Board.
took the Chair.
I desire to move Amendment 62:—
In sub-section (1), line 67, to delete the word "Minister" and substitute therefor the word "Mayor."
There is a slight error here. The word "Mayor" should be "Lord Mayor," but that can be remedied later on. In this amendment I want to preserve the last vestige of local autonomy. Running through the whole Bill is a spirit which seeks to deprive the citizens of Cork of any of the rights they held up to the appointment of the Commissioner. I would like to suggest to the Minister that I think the Cork City Management Bill is a misnomer. A more fitting name for this Bill would be a Bill to change the name of the Cork City Commissioner to the Cork City Manager. On the admission of the President it simply means a continuation of the Commissioner system in Cork. I think the Minister, and those associated with him in the promotion of the Bill, have not been honest with the House or with themselves. They have not even attempted to be honest, because if they attempted to act up to their protestations in public they would never have brought what I can only call an abortion of a Bill like this before the House.
I am anxious to know if the Minister will allow us even this much local autonomy in Cork that I have suggested in my rather meek amendment. I would remind Deputies that this section deals with the power of the elected council of the people to appoint a temporary sub-manager. It might be well to remind this attenuated House of the provisions of this section. There are seven members on the Government Benches, two of whom are Ministers, and the rank and file is made up of those who will not make themselves vocal in connection with this Bill which seeks to deprive the citizens of the second city in the Saorstát of any freedom so far as their municipal life is concerned.
I object to the Deputy describing Cork as the second city.
Of course, it is the first in my estimation, but we have to have some regard for the feelings of the two Dublin men left in the House.
I will refer Deputies to sub-section (1) of this section. I suggest that the words "Lord Mayor" should be substituted for the word "Minister," and the sub-section would read: "and may with the consent of the Lord Mayor at any time remove the deputy manager." Unless the Minister is altogether obsessed by the representations made to him by a minority of the persons in Cork, I cannot see where he can have any objection to my amendment.
I am not prepared to accept the Deputy's amendment now. I may say that it will be necessary to bring in a new draft of this particular section, and the matter can then be discussed.
I agree to withdraw the amendment provided the Minister guarantees an improvement in the section.
If Deputy Anthony is moving Amendment 64, I would like to say that it is desirable when you impose any obligation for payment to indicate how the rate will be raised, that is to say, that arrangements should be made for raising the expenditure incurred, and the words that the Deputy objects to simply indicate the rate from which the money is to be raised. I do not see any objection to that.
That amendment is withdrawn. I gave An Ceann Comhairle notice of that.
I beg to move Amendment 66—in line 17, after the word "may," to insert the words "after consultation with the town clerk."
It is simply a repetition. The same arguments apply to this as to previous sections where I moved "in consultation with the Lord Mayor or some other person of authority in the council." I tried to separate the functions of the town clerk from the functions of the city manager. I also wanted to remove the town clerk from the control of the manager, but I did not succeed. I formally move this amendment.
This is simply another case where, for no apparent purpose, the Deputy seeks to associate the town clerk with the manager. As I said in regard to the other cases, that could have no result but to confuse the responsibility of the city manager. It would result in diffusing his responsibilities, and it gives you a situation in which neither the manager nor town clerk will know who is responsible.
I withdraw that amendment.
I move:—
In sub-section (1), line 26, to insert after the word "modifications" the words "of and in any local Act or order relating to the borough and now in force or" and in lines 26 and 27 to delete the words in brackets "(including any enactment contained in any local Act)."
This is only a drafting amendment to make the section clear.
I would ask permission to amend the title by removing the words "County Borough of Cork" and substituting the words "Cork County Borough."