Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 11 Apr 1930

Vol. 34 No. 8

Public Business. - Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1929—Committee.

The Dáil went into Committee.
Debate resumed on amendment 89.
Before Section 50 to insert a new section as follows:—
"(1) The Council may, if and whenever it thinks fit, make regulations prescribing the procedure to be followed in regard to the receptions and examination of all or any particular class or classes of tenders for the supply of goods, the execution of works, or any other thing for which the Corporation may lawfully have invited the submission of tenders.
(2) All regulations made under this section shall be subject to the approval of the Minister and no such regulation shall be of any force or effect unless or until it has been so approved.
(3) Whenever and so long as any regulations made under this section are in force, all tenders to which such regulations apply shall be received and examined in accordance with the procedure prescribed by such regulations."

The proposed new section gives power to the council to frame regulations, subject to the concurrence of the Minister, that will deal with the machinery for receiving and considering tenders. It still leaves the matter of contracts to the Manager. In connection with that I would like to say that if Deputies give consideration to it they will come to the conclusion that the Manager once the reception and consideration of tenders have been safeguarded should be the person who would decide the acceptance of tenders.

I would like to refer to the amendment down to Section 50, with regard to the affixing of the official seal. Sub-section 8 of Section 50 states: "The Manager shall not affix the official seal of the Corporation to any documents save in the presence of the Lord Mayor." Deputy Lemass's amendment would make it "save in the presence of and with the consent of the Lord Mayor." This whole business of requiring the presence of the Lord Mayor when the Manager is affixing the seal that is affixed as a managerial touch to his own act is nothing but a nuisance, and if we require that the Lord Mayor shall give his consent before the seal is put on, it creates a situation in which the Manager, taking the act for which he is responsible for taking, may be held up in the completion of that act by someone else. In the case of a contract he may be open to action for breach of warranty of authority. I think I will move on Report to delete that whole business with regard to the seal, and where the Manager has to affix a seal in connection with an act which he is responsible for taking that the Manager shall affix the seal on behalf of the Corporation. Perhaps the Deputy would go into it and see what is involved in that matter of the seal in relation to the Manager being the person responsible for accepting contracts where the contract has to be sealed.

The adoption of this amendment will constitute a considerable improvement upon the proposal in the original Bill, but, nevertheless, I think it does not provide against all the contingencies that I see may arise. Undoubtedly the Council frames regulations which will necessitate the examination of tenders in public. It will become impossible or almost impossible, except under very exceptional circumstances, for the Manager to reject the lowest tender or the tender which the Council thinks should be accepted.

I think there should be a limit beyond which not merely the reception and examination but the actual acceptance of tenders should be a matter for the Council. In small contracts relating to ordinary routine duties of the Corporation, there is a good case for giving the Manager power to complete them. There is, however, another class of contract, the making of which becomes a matter of policy, and it is not clear whether it is the Manager or the Council who would have that power of decision. The City Commissioners, for instance, decided to terminate the system of cleaning the streets by direct labour and to have it done in future by contract. A contract of that kind is much different to quite a number of contracts that will arise from time to time relating to the work of the Corporation, and which should be determined by the Council and not by the Manager because there are considerations, other than those of the actual ability of the firm to carry out the contract or its cost, to be taken into account. I mentioned the necessity for giving the Council power to decide that a preference should be given to Irish firms or to firms contracting to use Irish material or to give other concessions of national benefit of that kind. Matters of policy arise there and not matters of administration. Therefore they should be determined by the Council and not by the Manager. Perhaps the Minister will consider between this and the Report Stage the advisability of introducing another section, in addition to the new section which he proposes to insert, providing that such matters shall be determined by the Council so that the Manager shall be subject to the Council in matters of that kind.

The Minister also referred to my amendment to the effect that the official seal should only be affixed to documents by the Manager in the presence of the Lord Mayor. The Bill states that it should be done in the presence of the Lord Mayor. That fact means, I think, that it could only be done with the consent of the Lord Mayor as he could refuse to give his consent by refusing to be present. It amounts to the same thing in the end, as the Lord Mayor could make it impossible for the Manager as the Bill now stands, to affix the seal by refusing to be present. The purpose of the amendment is to make the position clear. The real difficulty was that there was no machinery in the Bill to determine disputes between the Manager and the Lord Mayor. If the Lord Mayor declines to be present at the sealing of a document it cannot be sealed in consequence of the fact that no machinery exists to settle that matter. Another amendment stands in my name with a view to trying to resolve that difficulty. I do not say that my method is a perfect one by any means, but it was the only one which occurred to me to be capable of being inserted in the framework of this Bill. I do not think that the Minister's suggestion to delete these provisions in regard to the use of the official seal will constitute an improvement. In the long run the responsibility for the actions of the Corporation will devolve on the Council. The Council is responsible for raising the rates and, because of that fact, it cannot delegate its powers entirely to the Manager. If the Manager is given the power of making contracts there should be some machinery by which his actions will be supervised by somebody, even if it is only the limited supervision provided in the Bill. The fact that the Lord Mayor would have to be present at the sealing of a contract would constitute a safeguard and it would disimprove the Bill in my opinion to delete that.

In the old Council the Lord Mayor might have voted against the contract but it was part of his duty to attend at the fixing of the seal.

He could cause a constitutional crisis by refusing to be present.

In this case?

Yes, but it would be ridiculous for him. It is a check to this extent, that presumably the circumstances would have to be described to the Lord Mayor, and to that extent there is a safeguard in having a person to whom an explanation should be made or by whom it can be demanded. It would be inconceivable for the Lord Mayor to express an arbitrary "No." It would place him in an invidious position.

There is no analogy between the circumstances existing when the Bill will be in operation and those which obtained heretofore, as heretofore the Council made the contract, but now it will be the Manager. There is something to be said for the Minister's suggestion that the sections should be deleted if they are meaningless. If sub-section (8) means that the Lord Mayor must be advised by the Manager concerning contracts, and must give general approval to the Manager's actions, I think that the words "with the consent of" should be added so that the seal should be fixed, not merely in the presence of out definitely with the consent of the Lord Mayor.

If that were done the Lord Mayor must accept some responsibility. It is not intended to give him any responsibility, but it is intended that he should have the cloak of his responsible office around the whole circumstances but not in a way that would entail personal responsibility on himself. It is rather difficult to describe it, but what it means is that it is a kind of check, without actually being a check, to put in within the Lord Mayor's province to say "I will not do it," but to say that he will not do it without giving his reason, would be rather absurd.

I mentioned it because I thought consideration should be given to the matter. As it stands at present it is a matter of formality and a matter of information. As a formality, it is a nuisance to the Lord Mayor, and probably to the Manager, and, as a matter of information, such information as it gives can be got in other ways. I mentioned it in order that we might have mature consideration of it before the Report Stage.

Deputy Lemass has, I am sure, noticed in connection with certain proceedings that happened in another place that the seal of the Corporation was used rather gratuitously. This is, at least, one check on that. It is not likely that it would happen, but still it is a check.

I agree. My argument arose out of the fact that the Minister proposes to remove the check.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That the new section be inserted in the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 50.
(1) Before the appointed day the appointment of a person to be a Manager shall be made by the Minister on the recommendation of the Local Appointments Commissioners, and those Commissioners are hereby required to make such recommendation on the request of the Minister.
(2) On and after the appointed day the appointment of a person to be a Manager shall be made by the Council, and the office of Manager shall be an office to which the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, applies.
(3) The Manager shall hold office until he dies, resigns or is removed from office.
(4) The Manager shall not be removed without the sanction of the Minister and shall not be either suspended or removed by the Council save by a resolution passed by the Council for the purpose of such suspension or such removal (as the case may be) and for the passing of which not less than two-thirds of the members of the Council voted and which was so passed after not less than seven days' notice of the intention to propose such resolution had been given to every member of the Council.
(6) There shall be paid by the Corporation to the Manager such remuneration as the Minister shall from time to time determine.
(7) The Manager may do all such matters and things, including the making of contracts for and on behalf of the Corporation and the affixing of the official seal of the Corporation to documents, as may be necessary for or incidental to the exercise or performance of any of the powers, functions and duties of the Corporation which are by this Act required to be exercised or performed by the Manager.
(8) The Manager shall not affix the official seal of the Corporation to any documents save in the presence of the Lord Mayor or Mayor (as the case may be).

I move:—

To delete sub-section (1) and substitute two new sub-sections as follows:—

(1) Gerald Jarlath Sherlock, Town Clerk of the City of Dublin, shall be and is hereby appointed to be the City Manager as on and from the appointed day.

(2) Before the appointed day the appointment of a person to be the Borough Manager or (in the case of the said Gerald Jarlath Sherlock being prevented by any event occurring before or after the passing of this Act from taking office as City Manager) the City Manager shall be made by the Minister on the recommendation of the Local Appointments Commissioners, and those Commissioners are hereby required to make such recommendation on the request of the Minister.

This arises out of Amendment 54 which abolishes the position of Town Clerk and makes the City Manager both Manager and Town Clerk.

We feel on principle that it is a derogation of the dignity of the new Council, whatever Council are there, that they are not to be allowed even to select their own Chief Officer. We think it is not a proper thing no matter who the individual is. Without in any way bringing in the name of the individual that has been mentioned, we think it is certainly improper that the House should mention the name of the person to be appointed and force that person on any Council. It is quite possible that the new Council if they were left an absolutely free choice in the matter would select the gentleman named. We do not want to say anything in regard to the individual, either for or against him, but on principle we think it is absolutely improper. We think that the fact that the new Council are not to be allowed to select their own official takes considerably from the confidence that we ought to feel and that the citizens would have in the Council. The President and some others in this House had a long experience of the Municipal Council and a long experience of its chief officers. I doubt if anybody who has had experience of these officials—certainly I cannot say it and I have had an experience of almost every official of prominence and responsibility who has in the last twenty-five years been elected or promoted to a responsible office by the Municipal Council—can say that officials so promoted were not the best officials that could be got so far as experience went.

If we are to judge by the Councils that were in existence in the past and go on past experience, we must conclude that the Council will be a responsible body. That Council, no matter how composed, will certainly have as their primary interest, the interests of the citizens as a whole. I think it is absolutely wrong that the House or the Minister should insert here the name of any one individual. I think the Council should be left absolutely free to select their own official. We could bring up here at this stage appointments that were made by the Department to very responsible offices in the last seven or eight years, in relation to matters of this kind, and which have not proved as successful as appointments made by the old Municipal Council, on the admission of the Department itself. I think the President would be well advised, as he is primarily responsible, to advise the Minister for Local Government, who has not the same experience, to leave the name out and to put the responsibility where it belongs, on the Municipal Council, to select the best official that can be got. If the responsibility is put on their shoulders they will get a good official, and if it happens afterwards—I do not say it will happen in this case—that the official appointed does not prove satisfactory they cannot come here and say: "Well, we have no responsibility. This choice was not ours." In all the circumstances, without reference to the gentleman who is named in the Bill. I think it is setting up a wrong precedent and a precedent that we should not stand by.

Supposing we do not name any individual as Manager, would not the appointment under the Local Appointments Act go to a Selection Committee? If we do not nominate the official, would not the Appointments Committee nominate him for the Council?

Deputy Good misses the point. We do not approve of that particular method.

That is the law as it stands.

I agree, but the objection we make to naming the individual in the Bill is that it gives that individual a status equal to the status of the Council. It is really a matter of psychology. I think it is very undersirable that the particular individual should be named here as Manager, because that means that the person's title to act as Manager is just as good as the title of the Council to act as the Corporation. The mere fact that the Council have the formal making of the appointment under the Local Appointments Act means that there is a definite acknowledgment of the superiority of the Council. It means that where an individual is selected by the Appointments Commission and his name sent forward to the Council, although the Council's appointment of that individual is a mere formality, there is a definite acknowledgment of the superiority of the Council which there will not be in this particular case in consequence of the fact that one individual is appointed by statute to be Manager. As Deputy O'Kelly stated, our objection to the section has no relation to the individual mentioned. I have known Mr. Sherlock to be a competent official. It is quite possible— I would go so far as to say it is likely—that in the circumstances now existing the Council would be almost coerced to the appointment of Mr. Sherlock, because the alternatives would be very few. The objection is to the naming of the individual and to the status and the authority which this section will confer upon him.

Do I take it that the objection is that the appointment was not left to be made by the Council on a selection by the Local Appointments Commission or that the system is objected to?

The original Bill was better than the amendment, but nevertheless we propose to amend the original Bill.

Let us take the matter in steps. The lesser objectionable of the two steps is the one that was in the original Bill?

That is by reason of the fact that what we call the nominal election or appointment was left to the Council. Taking the first point, that the Council should have the appointment, I certainly do not approve of that. I recollect that there was one appointment made in the Corporation when I was a member. I happened to be in a minority on that occasion. It was the usual position in which I found myself.

And it will be again, please God.

I believe Deputy O'Kelly was in the majority. My case was that the person appointed had smaller service and lesser qualifications. The same thing could happen in the present instance. After all, one's persuasive power would count. What one might describe as the goods put in the window by certain persons when canvassing are a pretty big consideration. There are other persons who are not so capable perhaps of putting their goods so elegantly in the shop window and consequently their claims to consideration are not considered as strong. In this case, this is a very responsible official. It is also, I think, agreed that if the Manager system, which has got general acceptance, is to work with any degree of smoothness, it is advisable to have a person in the service in question, granted he is a suitable and a competent person, appointed. In this particular appointment the person proposed as Manager on this occasion has possibly five or six years' service as Town Clerk—a sufficiently long experience to allow of the smooth working of the new arrangement.

Deputies will, I am sure, appreciate the fact that to set up a Selection Board for the purpose of making appointments, such as in this instance, would not be an easy task. It would not be at all so easy to constitute a Selection Board which would in the first place, give satisfaction to the Local Appointments Commissioners, and in the second place to the ordinary public. The question arises then, is there a person in the service of sufficient experience commanding a sufficient amount of public confidence and at the same time, suitable for appointment? I would say there are several in the service. There is another point for consideration. Is it advisable to consider an outside appointment? Properly speaking, it would if the system were in operation and if we had experience of its working, but it is due to the city that it should have an opportunity of taking the very best person available for the office, no matter from what part of the country he comes. As I have said this system is in its infancy and the smooth working of it is one of its most important characteristics. While we might get another appointment by the Selection Board, it is fairly clear that we could scarcely get a much better appointment than that of the person who occupies the position of senior official in the service.

As the co-operation of the various branches of the service is essential to the smooth and harmonious working of the new system, I think the Minister was well advised in making the nomination.

Does not that mean that the Government consider themselves a better appointments commission than the Local Appointments Commission?

I would not say that. There is another side to it. The Government consider that the circumstances of the time are better served by the nomination of the chief officer of the Corporation in the inauguration of the new system than by having an outsider, even with better qualifications if one were to be found.

Does the President not think that the same argument will weigh with the Council? Is it not obvious that the Council will be influenced by exactly the same consideration as the Government were influenced by, and that probably they would make the very same appointment, but there would be a decided difference, because the appointment would be made by the Council in the first place, and it is being made by statute in this case. Would the Government consider an amendment to the effect that this appointment shall continue until the Appointed Day and shall then be subject to ratification by the Council?

The Deputy will appreciate that the Local Appointments Commission expressed the policy of the Government. The Deputy's suggestion would vitiate that. Any future appointments of that sort should be dealt with by the Appointments Commission. In the special circumstances, we are relieving them of that responsibility in this connection.

As to the appointment by the Government this time, judging by some recent appointments by the Local Appointments Commission, it is probably more honest that the Government should make this appointment in the open. We have the case of the County Medical Officer for Meath and the County Medical Officer for Tirconaill. What were these but Government appointments? Does anyone think that they were made in any way but by wirepulling? It certainly was not any question of special qualification. If there is any merit in this, it is because it is done in the open.

So far as any appointment made by the Local Appointments Commission is concerned, not to my knowledge, direct or indirect, or to the knowledge of any member of the Government, was there ever anything in the nature of influence used. Are we to take it that a person having the necessary qualifications, but being a member, let us say, of Cumann na nGaedheal or any other Party, is not to get any appointment?

No, certainly not.

Then the Deputy ought never to have been appointed an ambassador outside this country.

On the question of these two appointments referred to, it will be time enough to take up the Deputy's remarks and consider them when the bodies that these two officers are serving have anything to say with regard to the qualifications or application to their duties of these officers. As Deputy Lemass apparently has noticed, the position is with regard to the first appointment of the Manager, at any rate, that the Bill, as originally drafted, provided that the first appointment was to be made by the Minister on the recommendation of the Local Appointments Commissioners, for the reason that the Council and Manager system had to come into being on the one day, so that the Minister, in the first instance, is simply performing the act that the Council in normal circumstances would perform. As far as the recommendation of the Local Appointments Commission was concerned, it was simply a matter of formality for the Minister or the Council. The circumstances in which we are amalgamating the position of Town Clerk with that of City Manager, and when we have in the position of Town Clerk in Dublin an officer of capacity and experience, we make it obvious that we have to do what we are doing. I do not agree that it in the least puts the person now being appointed City Manager in any way in a different position with regard to his powers, functions, and duties or his relations to the Council, than he would be in if he were appointed by the Council on the recommendation of the Local Appointments Commission. He is simply made Manager by statute, rather than by order or by express appointment, either of the Minister or of the Council. But his position from the point of view of status and powers and relation to the Council is simply as defined in the Bill, which will be the position of any Manager subsequently appointed in the way provided for.

Question put and agreed to.

That concludes the Ministerial amendments to Section 50.

Is the Minister not accepting any of mine?

No.

Section 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 51

(1) The Manager shall, whenever requested by the Lord Mayor or Mayor (as the case may be) so to do, afford to the Lord Mayor or Mayor all such information as may be in the possession or precurement of the Manager in regard to any act, matter or thing appertaining to or concerning any business or transaction of the Corporation which is mentioned in such request.

(2) At the beginning of every month the Manager shall cause to be prepared and shall furnish to the Lord Mayor or Mayor (as the case may be) a statement showing as nearly as may be the actual financial position of the Corporation at the end of the previous month.

I move amendment 98:—

In sub-section (1), page 25, line 5, before the word "so" to insert the words "or the Council" and in line 6 after the word "Mayor" to insert the words "or the Council (as the case may require)."

I think this covers the amendment of Deputy Lemass.

That is right.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 52.

I move amendment 102:

At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:

(2) It shall be the duty of the Manager to carry into effect all lawful orders of the Council in relation to the exercise and performance of the reserved functions.

The section as it stands makes it the duty of the Manager to advise and assist the Council generally on certain matters and this is an amplification of that.

What is the exact significance of the word "lawful" in the amendment?

That the Council could not give the Manager, in respect of their duties, an order that was not a lawful order; an order to do a thing that was entirely outside the functions of the Corporation or Council. It is simply a drafting provision.

The danger I see is that a dispute may arise between the Manager and the Council as to whether a particular order given by the Council was lawful or not. After all, the order must relate to the exercise and performance of the reserved functions. If it is outside the authority of the Council it cannot possibly relate to the reserved functions. It would be much safer, therefore, to have the responsibility put directly on the Council to say that the Manager shall carry out all the orders of the Council in the matter of the reserved functions. The dubious qualification implied by the insertion of the word "lawful" is unwise.

The word is there for safety. It is the ordinary statutory word used. We have either to have the word "lawful" in or out. It is much safer from the point of view of the law and the proper discharge of business to have it in than to have it out.

I take it that if there is a dispute it is to be determined in the courts?

We can look into that.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 53.
The Manager shall have the right to attend meetings of the Council and to take part in discussions at such meetings as if he were a member of the Council, but he shall not be entitled to vote on any question which is to be decided by a vote of the members of the Council.

I move amendment 103:—

Before Section 53 to insert a new section as follows:—

The Council may at any time by resolution require the Manager to prepare and submit to the Council plans and specifications for the execution of any particlar work specified in such resolution which can lawfully be executed by the Corporation, together with an estimate of the probable cost of the execution of such work, and whenever the Council passes any such resolution the Manager shall, as soon as conveniently may be, prepare and submit to the Council plans and specifications and an estimate in accordance with such resolution.

This amendment was discussed on Section 49 yesterday. It enables the Council to get, in time for leisurely consideration on their part, all plans for any works they may wish to carry out, whether by borrowing or by inclusion in the estimates for the coming year.

The only point is that the Council might not be prepared to accept the Manager's estimate of the cost of the proposed works as being accurate. Would they have any power to get an alternative estimate, say, an estimate from a contractor?

The Council will have to get the information; they will get it from the Manager. It is simply a matter of arrangement on the part of the Council to ask the Manager to get an estimate from whatever people they require to get it. In the ordinary course of business that could be arranged, and if there is any difficulty about it, amendment 111 could work, only it is a very cumbersome piece of machinery. I cannot imagine any necessity for utilising the powers contained in amendment 111 for carrying this out.

The powers given to the Council in this amendment will only be utilised in case of dispute between the Manager and the Council. Take a case like this: suppose the Council's policy was that Nelson's Pillar should be removed and the Manager thought it should be left where it is, and that it would be too costly to remove it. The Council asks the Manager to submit an estimate of the cost of its removal, and he says £50,000. The Council do not believe that it would cost anything of the sort. Can the Council in these circumstances get from a contractor, or get the Manager to get from a contractor, an estimate of the cost of removing the Pillar for comparison with the Manager's own estimate?

It seems to me that it is forgotten that there is such an officer as the City Surveyor. Am I to understand that the City Surveyor would not be present at the Council meeting at which such a matter as that was to be decided, and would it not be he in the first instance who should prepare the estimate?

Amendment 107 secures that at any Council meeting at which the attendance of an officer is required the Manager shall arrange for him to be present.

Question put and agreed to.

I move amendment 107:—

To add at the end of the Section a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) The Manager shall attend any meeting of the Council at which he is requested by the Council to attend and shall at such meeting give to the Council such advice and assistance as shall reasonably be required of him by the Council, and for that purpose the Manager shall arrange for the attendance at such meeting of such of the officers of the Corporation as may be necessary.

This meets, to some extent, the request to make it obligatory on the Manager to attend the council meeting when asked to do so. Some amendments suggest the same thing should apply to committee meetings, and I shall see what way we can amend this to meet it. I shall amend the present section so as to provide that the Manager shall attend meetings of the Council, or of any of its committees, at which he is requested by the Council to attend. Normally if a committee requests the attendance of the Manager he will attend. There is the difficulty of several committees meeting on the same day, and I do not care to tie up the situation completely. However, I shall consider what amendment requires to be made with regard to securing his attendance and the attendance of other officials at committees. In the meantime I move this amendment 107.

The amendment says that the Manager shall arrange "for the attendance at such meetings of such of the officers of the Corporation that may be necessary." Would it not be more desirable there to put in the words "as the Council that may be necessary." Surely the Council ought to have the right to bring those officials to these meetings.

Is not that an executive function that comes under the control of the Manager?

We do not want to have the position arise in which, for some reason or another, someone would suggest that a particular clerk who had dealt with a particular thing should be brought before the Council. There you would have the Council, and not the Manager, controlling the staff.

I have not in mind at all the question of a clerk or anything of that kind. The object is to secure the presence of officials such as the law agent or the city surveyor where they might be needed and where it might be necessary to consult them. It might be necessary, because of their absence, to call a special meeting of the Council to have them present. It is a matter of saving time.

Might I ask is the Minister considering amendment 108 in conjunction with the attendance of the Manager and officials at committees of the Council under Section 56? The Manager has a right to attend meetings of the Council. May I assume from that that he has also the right to remain away? The intention of the amendment that I have tabled is to comply with an old Standing Order of the Corporation; that is, if a Committee of the Council require the attendance of an official they can, through their Standing Orders, direct the Manager or other officials to attend, if they so require their presence at any time. I should be glad if the Minister accepted my amendment.

The two things may be discussed together.

I suggest that the words in amendment 107, "and for that purpose the Manager shall arrange for the attendance at such meeting of such of the officers of the Corporation as may be necessary," is all that is required.

The point is who is to decide whether it is necessary or not? Is it going to be the Council or the Manager? As the amendment stands it would seem to me that the Manager is going to have the right and power to determine whether it is necessary or not, irrespective of what the views of the Council may be.

In the interests of efficiency it would be better to accept the suggestion I made.

There is a certain danger here. If the Manager is to have control of the staff, surely it is part of his business to settle what duties they are to attend to.

Nobody knows better than Deputy Good that it is necessary to have the Borough Surveyor present at meetings.

I see something behind this, something possibly that some of the Deputies do not see. I am quite satisfied that any Manager, and particularly this Manager, if the Council requires any official, will only be too glad to send for him, but control of these officials surely must be in the hands of the Manager and not the Council.

Deputy Good misses the point. It is not proposed that the Council should ask clerks to come before them on the question as to whether the Manager is doing his work properly or not. Officials will only be asked to come before the Council to give it any assistance it may require. The Manager is not a lawyer, and the Council some time or other may want proper legal opinion upon some question and they cannot get that through the Manager but through their law officer, and, therefore, they should have power to require the attendance of the law officer. The same would apply in the case of the engineer or any other skilled official. Their presence may be required for giving information and advice which the Manager could not give without consulting them. One difficulty arises. The Council can only request that a thing be done by passing a resolution, and a resolution may require notice. It may conceivably arise that the attendance of the Manager might be required at a Council, or a committee meeting, in order to resolve a particular difficulty that was not foreseen. Is it not advisable, therefore, that the Manager should be required to attend, if requested, say, by the Lord Mayor so to do, and that it should not be necessary for the Council to adjourn for a few days in order to have notice given and a resolution passed requiring the attendance of the Manager?

My whole attitude towards this amendment is that it is entirely unnecessary, that the Manager will be there whenever he is wanted, simply because the nature of his work requires it. If the Deputy thinks that this amendment means that when the Council requires the attendance of the Manager at a meeting it has to pass a resolution, then I think that my own amendment is thoroughly faulty.

What the Minister says is correct. In normal circumstances the Manager will come and there will be no difficulty in the Council getting all the assistance it requires. But a provision of this kind is put into the Bill to deal with an emergency—when the Manager and the Council have a row and when the Manager says he will not attend when a certain matter is under discussion. If that possibility of dispute is not going to arise there is no necessity for the amendment, but I take it that the amendment has been put down because there is that possibility.

I can quite understand the Minister's attitude on this amendment with regard to the Manager, but I can state from experience that there are occasions when Committees require the attendance of certain officials, and it is easy for an official to avoid attending if he has no desire to be there. It is an inconvenience to a committee to have to require the attendance of an official when he, for one reason or another, wishes to avoid being there, and there should be power to give a direction.

I take it that amendments 107, 108 and 109 as they stand on the Paper deal with this point. Could we either postpone them all, or insert amendment 107, leaving over 108 and 109 to the next Stage? Would there be any advantage in doing that?

How is it proposed to deal with it in the meantime? We can see the Minister's mind on the matter and the mind of the other side. Could anything be done in the meantime? Certainly I am very keen on giving the Council power to send for any official, and I have particularly in mind the City Surveyor. From my experience of public bodies I should say that his presence would nearly always be necessary. I take the case of the Borough Surveyor for the sake of argument. If he is an architect dealing with a housing scheme he should be present, because the City Manager could not possibly answer all the questions that would be raised with regard to estimates and other matters, and it would be only a waste of time for him to try to answer.

While recognising that this amendment is proposed in a formal way to make it necessary for the Manager to bring forward to the Council such officials as are required to deal with such a matter as the Deputy has referred to, I take it that the Deputy does not want to open the door to minor officials——

No, certainly not.

——with that kind of linking up with the Council that we are anxious to avoid in order to have the staff properly responsible to the City Manager in carrying out their duties?

Nobody suggested that.

While I am anxious to do everything that will enable the officials that the Deputy speaks about to approach the Council, I am not anxious to open the door to that type of intrigue that might go on between a section of the staff and the Council on a particular matter so that a situation might be brought about whereby a certain group of officials could appear before the Council and have a wrangle with the Manager over any matter. I do not want to open the door to anything in the nature of indiscipline and friction between the staff and the City Manager. Deputies will clearly see my mind if they realise that I am anxious to have brought before the Council all the officials whom it is necessary to bring in order to carry on the business properly. I am anxious that that should be done without the necessity for passing a resolution, and it may be necessary there to change amendment 107 to say simply that the Manager shall attend meetings of the Council as requested by the Council, or something like that, or as requested by the Lord Mayor.

What does the Minister mean by "as may be necessary?"

That is the point.

That is the point. It is for the Manager to say.

"The attendance of such of the officers of the Corporation as may be necessary." In the opinion of whom?

That is the point.

As may be necessary.

But surely the Minister is not going to be responsible for putting an Act on the Statute Book with that ambiguity in it? He should definitely either give the power to the Corporation or to the Manager to decide when a case of necessity arises.

The implication here is that the Manager is to decide.

What does it mean if it does not mean that?

Suppose we arranged it in this way: "The Manager shall arrange for the attendance of such officers of the Council as in the opinion of the Council may be necessary——"

——then you would immediately open the door to the possibility of that type of connection and intrigue between certain members of the staff and certain members of the Council that would undermine the discipline of the Manager.

No responsible body would do that.

Unfortunately we have had experience. Only yesterday I was talking to certain representatives of the Business Party in Cork and this was the precise issue raised. They raised it in the strongest possible manner. They said that they had been refused by the Manager the attendance of these people, and what they specifically objected to was the refusal of the Manager to allow these people to be there.

When did that happen?

Yesterday morning in the City of Dublin.

I mean, when was the refusal?

I think it would be a very good idea if the Minister would table for the Dáil the whole of a proceedings of the Cork Corporation. Then Deputies would know that the Manager himself has walked out of a meeting indignantly saying: "I will not stay." He insolently and angrily told the Corporation that he would not produce any officials. This is a live issue. Who is to decide what officials may be necessary? Does the Minister want to put it in such a form that nobody on God's earth knows until we go to court to decide it? Is that the sort of legislation that he wants to pass? Surely he can tell us that he means "such officials as shall be necessary in the opinion of the Manager," or "such officials as shall be necessary in the opinion either of the Manager or the Council," or "such officials as are necessary in the opinion of the Council." He cannot leave it open, in face of our actual experience in Cork. The business men in Cork cannot be accused of any revolutionary activity in relation to the City Manager, so that they cannot be accused of any wild initiative for altering his position, but in the strongest possible terms to me yesterday was put this demand by business representatives of Cork, by the people who voted against any amendment of the Bill. What is the Minister going to do? Is he going to leave this as a fly-trap or is he going to tell us what the section is supposed in his mind to mean, to say nothing of what it may mean in the minds of the lawyers when it comes to be examined?

In my opinion, in the actual working out of things, this amendment is entirely unnecessary. I am putting it in to meet Deputies' objections in the matter. I am putting it in to make it clear that the officials that are necessary to do the Council's business will be produced by the Manager. But in putting in an amendment like this I want to avoid any possibility of undermining the discipline of the staff under the Manager by an objectionable connection between members of the staff and members of the Council, and I ask Deputies to sympathise with me in that matter and to give it further consideration. I do not know what kind of changes we can make. On the Report Stage we might make a change like this: "Such officers as the Council or the Manager shall consider necessary." I think the Deputies understand the spirit in which I approached this matter, and if we accept amendment 107 we can see what other amendment would be required to make it more acceptable. The whole thing is unnecessary. In connection with what Deputy Flinn said on one occasion, as far as I know, in certain circumstances the production of a particular officer was refused.

On more than one occasion.

I know of one occasion. I asked the Deputy when the incident he speaks of took place ——

May I point out to the Minister that our viewpoint on this question is more or less indicated in the amendment standing in my name? The particular things we want to provide are that the heads of Departments—if that is the official title of the individuals I have in mind—shall attend for the purpose of advising and assisting the Council in the exercise of the reserved functions when required to do so or when requested to do so by the Council or by the Lord Mayor. I do not think it is impossible to get an amendment to meet that point.

Perhaps we could leave these three amendments over now.

Amendment 107, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 108 and 109 not moved.
Question—"That Section 53, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
[Professor Thrift took the Chair.]
SECTION 54.
(1) The officers and servants of the Corporation (including the Town Clerk) shall perform their duties as such officers and servants in accordance with such directions as the Manager may from time to time give either generally or in regard to the performance of any particular duty or any particular class or classes of duties or in regard to the performance of any such duty by any particular officer or servant of the Corporation, and the Manager shall have and exercise control and full supervision of and over such officers and servants and any and every act or thing done or to be done by them in their capacity as officers and servants of the Corporation.
(2) Subject to any regulations made by the Minister under any Act and for the time being in force in relation to the service, remuneration, privileges, or superannuation (as the case may be) of the officers and servants of a local authority, 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 of the officers and servants of the Corporation.

I move:—

Before Section 54 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The Council, at a meeting specially summoned for the purpose under this section, may by resolution proposed and passed in accordance with this section require any particular act, matter, or thing, specifically mentioned in such resolution and which the Corporation or the Manager can lawfully do, to be done in relation to any of the powers, functions, and duties of the Corporation which are not for the time being reserved functions.

(2) Notice of the intention to propose any such resolution as is authorised by the foregoing sub-section of this section shall be given in writing to the Manager and shall be signed by not less than seven members of the Council and shall contain a copy of such resolution and shall specify a day (not less than seven nor more than fourteen days after the day on which such notice is received by the Manager) for the holding of the meeting of the Council at which such resolution is to be proposed and considered.

(3) Whenever the Manager receives any such notice as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section of this section, he shall as soon as possible send a copy of such notice to every member of the Council and shall summon a special meeting of the Council for the date specified in that behalf in such notice at the usual hour for meetings of the Council.

(4) When a resolution of which notice has been given under this section has been proposed at the meeting of the Council summoned for the purpose under this section, the Council and the Manager shall consider such resolution and if after such consideration the Council pass such resolution and the number of members voting for such resolution exceeds half the total membership of the Council, the Manager shall, if and when and so far as money for the purpose is or has been provided, do in accordance with such resolution the act, matter, or thing which is required by such resolution to be done.

(5) A resolution passed under this section shall not be so expressed as to apply or extend—

(a) to the exercise or performance of any power, function, or duty of the Corporation generally or to every case or occasion of the exercise or performance of any such power, function, or duty or to a number or class of such cases or occasions so extended as to be substantially or in effect every case or occasion on which such power, function, or duty is exercised or performed, nor

(b) to the exercise or performance of any power, on duty conferred or imposed on the Manager by or under this Act in relation to the officers or servants of the Corporation or the control, supervision, service, remuneration, privileges, or superannuation of such officers or servants or any of them.

Any resolution purporting to be passed by the Council under this section which contravenes this sub-section shall be void and of no effect.

This is another of the amendments we discussed generally on Section 49. It provides that the Council can require the Manager to carry out a particular act.

Might I again remind the Minister of two points that I asked him to reconsider: first, the inadvisability of having half the entire members of the Council in relation to the passing of a resolution under sub-section (4), and secondly, the necessity of having some machinery by which a dispute between the Manager and the Council arising out of sub-section (5) would be determined?

I would be prepared to bring in an amendment on the Report Stage making it half the members of the Council or two-thirds of those present at the meeting.

That might be worse.

Whichever is the lesser. I think I would be prepared to put in such an amendment although I hardly see the necessity, that in case of a dispute the Minister shall decide.

I knew that would be the solution.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 54, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.

Is not an amendment required to Section 54 where the words in brackets, "including the Town Clerk," appear?

I will consider that on the Report Stage. There are some other places where that happens.

Section 55 agreed to.
SECTION 56.
(1) The Manager may by order signed by him and countersigned by the Town Clerk authorise the making of any payment out of the funds of the Corporation in respect of any expense or on account of any liability incurred by the Council or the Manager on behalf of the Corporation in the exercise or the performance by the Council or the Manager (as the case may be) of any of the powers, functions or duties of the Corporation which are exercisable or performable by them or him respectively under this Act.
(2) The Lord Mayor or Mayor (as the case may be) may at any time direct by writing under his hand that every order made under the foregoing sub-section of this section during the unexpired residue of his term of office or during any lesser period specified in such direction shall be submitted to him for his signature, and the Lord Mayor or Mayor may by writing under his hand revoke any such direction at any time during the period to which the same relates.
(3) If and whenever the Lord Mayor or Mayor (as the case may be) gives any such direction as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section of this section then, while such direction remains in force, the signature of the Lord Mayor or Mayor (as the case may be) shall be necessary on every such order as is mentioned in the first sub-section of this section in addition to the signature and countersignature mentioned in that sub-section, but the Lord Mayor or Mayor shall not by reason of the fact of his signature being on any such order incur any liability to which he would not have been liable if he had not given such direction as aforesaid.

I move:—

In sub-section (1), page 26, lines 24 and 25, to delete the words "and countersigned by the Town Clerk."

That is consequential on the amalgamation of the position of Manager and Town Clerk, and we will have to consider whether anything else should be put in to replace it.

I take it that the Minister is considering that question.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

To delete sub-sections (2) and (3) and substitute three new sub-sections as follows:—

(2) The Council may at any time by resolution direct that every order made under the foregoing sub-section of this section shall, during such period as is specified in such resolution, be submitted to the Lord Mayor or Mayor (as the case may be) or to some other member of the Council nominated from time to time for the purpose by the Council for his signature.

(3) The Council may at any time by resolution revoke a direction given under the foregoing sub-section of this section and for the time being in force.

(4) If and whenever the Council gives any such direction as is hereinbefore mentioned, then, while such direction remains in force, the signature of the Lord Mayor or Mayor or of the member of the Council nominated for the purpose (as the case may require) shall be necessary on every such order as is mentioned in the first sub-section of this section in addition to the signature of the Manager, but the Lord Mayor or Mayor or such member of the Council (as the case may be) shall not by reason of the fact of his signature being on any such order incur any liability to which he would not have been liable if such direction as aforesaid had not been given.

As the section stands it gave the Lord Mayor power to require, at any time, that every paying order should be countersigned by him before it went out. I thought it better to replace the Lord Mayor by the Council, so that in case the impossible happened of a Lord Mayor taking up the attitude that he was not going to allow any payments, there would be some control of the situation. The amendment simply proposes to replace "the Lord Mayor" by "the Council."

I agree that the replacement of the Lord Mayor by the Council is an improvement, but I do not think the contingencies that made the original proposal objectionable are altogether removed by the amendment. I take it that this section has been put into the Bill to deal with the possibility of the Manager turning dishonest, or acting in a manner which might give rise to suspicions in the minds of the Council. A similar section was put into the Cork Bill, and the danger of giving absolute power over the Corporation finances to one individual without check was adverted to. I agree that it is unlikely that the person appointed as Manager will proceed to pocket the Corporation funds, but nevertheless we must safeguard against the possibility, because the funds in question are very large. If the Council passes a resolution requiring that all paying orders signed by the Manager must be countersigned by the Lord Mayor, or by a member of the Council appointed for that purpose, and if that person comes to the conclusion that a particular paying order signed by the Manager should not be countersigned by him, what will be the position? Who will be responsible for the determination of the question, whether the paying order should or should not be issued? The matter is more urgent in relation to the expenditure of money than in relation to other things, because it is conceivably possible that a cause of action against the Corporation might arise in consequence of a refusal of the representative of the Council to countersign the paying order. I think some machinery will have to be set up by which, if the representative of the Council refuses to sign a paying order, or if the Corporation think the paying order should not be issued, the Mayor can require that the question will be brought before the Council for determination.

It would seem the natural thing that if the Manager issues a paying order and that the person nominated by the Council for the special purpose of counter-signing refused to give his signature, that then the Manager would report the matter to the Council. Assuming that it was an honest transaction, the Council would then take the matter into consideration and would have to make up their minds whether they were going to remain in the position in which a payment due to be made was not going to be made because the counter-signature had been refused. At any rate, the matter would come up for discussion before the Council. If the Council was persuaded that it was right to make the payment, then in the event of the counter-signature being refused by their nominee they would have to nominate somebody else to do that particular duty. I do not think there is any element of the possibility of a deadlock in that particular way. On the other hand, if the Manager did not bring the matter before the Council it would suggest that there was something dishonest in the transaction. The situation, however, would be entirely in the Manager's hands, and I doubt if there is any further elaboration of the amendment necessary.

There are two things in the amendment that I do not understand. It looks to me that there are two persons in existence to either of whom this thing can be submitted for signature—the Lord Mayor or somebody else. It seems to me that if these two people could co-exist it would be a question of choice as to which would give his signature. There is a second point that I am not clear on. It was raised by something the Minister said. I would like to know from the Minister if it is a general power that is being given to this alternative person or is it simply power ad hoc?

Is the Deputy referring to any particular sub-section of the amendment?

I am taking the statement of the Minister from which I gathered that this had something to do with a specific occasion: that a person will be set up with authority to countersign cheques in relation to a specific occasion. It seems to me that the authority which will be given to him would be a general authority.

It is a general authority for a particular purpose.

Then the position that arises is this: that if some specific instance arises you can only give general authority. You cannot give a specific authority. The second point that I want to make is that there seem to be two people to whom cheques can be submitted. I have had experience in the case of a certain local body whose cheques were required to be counter-signed by certain members for a specific purpose. Certain men were chosen to sign specific cheques for it was certain they would do so and others were not chosen because they would object to do so. Here you have an alternative.

The intention of the amendment really is that the Council shall nominate one person to do that. That person may be either the Lord Mayor or any member of the Council.

But the Bill does not say so.

I agree that possibly that is not clear in the amendment as it stands. If Deputies think that the nomination of one member to carry out this duty is not sufficient and that it might be more advisable to have more than one, I could bring in an amendment to make that clear. The idea is that should the Council come to the decision that certain supervision in this matter is necessary, then that supervision should be carried out by one person—not necessarily by the Lord Mayor. I am prepared to make clearer the point Deputy Flinn raised, but in the absence of any further recommendation on the matter I intend to leave the position that one person would be assigned to this particular duty.

And I am in favour of the Lord Mayor being that person.

The Lord Mayor may not be anxious to undertake it. There may be a very considerable amount of work involved in this. If the Lord Mayor is to be the person, and if he has to be present every time that the seal is to be affixed or an order issued, he may find himself tied up in a multiplicity of small details. Then this may not be consonant with the dignity of his office even though it appeared to the Council that the Lord Mayor was the proper person to see the thing done. You do not want to have this work done by the Lord Mayor if, in the opinion of the Council, it can be more conveniently done by some other person.

Could not the point be met by adding to the amendment that, in the case of the failure of the Lord Mayor or the person appointed by the Council to countersign the cheques, the Manager would then report the matter to the Council.

The matter would be reported to the Council. If the Manager was left, by arrangement of the Council and by the nominee of the Council, in the position that he could not make a lawful payment, he would have to report that to the Council.

I think there is a misunderstanding about this whole matter. As a matter of fact, the Council does not make payments at all. The payments are made by the Finance Committee. I speak from experience. Supposing that one member of the Finance Committee is nominated to sign cheques, it may not be possible for that member to be present on a particular day. It seems to me that if the Lord Mayor, or the person appointed by the Committee to do this, is not available to sign the cheques, surely it would be within the province of the Finance Committee to depute some other member of the Committee to discharge that duty.

Would the Deputy tell me where there is any reference in the Bill to a Finance Committee? There is none in Cork.

I can only refer the Deputy to Deputy Corish for information on that point. Deputy Corish, like myself, has had considerable experience of these local government matters.

Not of this particular Bill.

These payments are made by the finance committee. That is the object of the finance committee.

There "ain't" no such animal. There is only a Manager. There is no finance committee. The Deputy is only dreaming dreams.

I do not think so at all. I think that under the Manager you will have committees just as you have at present—finance and other committees. From my reading of the Bill, there is nothing in it to prohibit the setting up of such committees. If you have a Council under the Bill then you will have a certain number of committees—I hope not as many as under the old system. But when the Council is set up you will have a number of committees to deal with these matters as they ought to be dealt with. I am satisfied that one of the first committees that will be set up under the Council will be a finance committee.

I would like to know from the Minister whether it is proposed under the Bill to have a departure from the old system whereby the Finance Committee met an hour or so previous to the monthly meeting of the Council, examined the accounts, and signed them in globo. The treasurer's advice note was signed at the end by three members of the Committee. If there is to be no departure from that I do not see any necessity for deputing any particular member of the Finance Committee to sign. When the members of the Finance Committee have passed the accounts and submitted them to the City Manager and he signs the cheques, I think that is quite sufficient.

Speaking from experience, I can say that the members of the Finance Committee never had anything to do with the signing of cheques.

Not cheques—paying orders.

Unless they first got the power of the Council, nothing was passed by the Finance Committee and transferred to officials.

That is what I said, that the treasurer's advice note was signed by three members of the Council and was then submitted to the Council. The Town Clerk under the old regime signed the pay orders. I think this is all a storm in a teacup.

Mr. Byrne

Suppose that such a contingency did arise and there is a refusal by the Lord Mayor, or the member who has been nominated, to do so, refusing to sign the cheques—

To sign the paying orders?

Mr. Byrne

Yes. In the case of a refusal on the part of the official, or officials, who under the Bill are authorised to sign what would the position be? That might involve the Council in legal proceedings. If a man is owed money and there is no means of paying him it might involve the Council in an action, and in such a case who is going to pay the cost of the proceedings? If such an impasse arises what machinery is there in the Bill to enable payments to be made by the Council, or is there any?

Whatever precaution is to be taken is in respect of paying on the advice note to the treasurer. Unless the paying order is presented to the treasurer——

The advice note to the treasurer.

It seems to me that the suggestion as to this imposing a laborious duty on the Lord Mayor is beside the point, for that would be a comparatively simple matter if he is attending to the ordinary routine duties of the Corporation as he ought to be. What he would sign would be a facsimile of all the items of expenditure which had been passed for payment, and, therefore, I do not think that the possibility which is being more or less envisaged here of the Lord Mayor having to put his signature to thousands of documents in two or three days does arise. He will have to sign only one document.

What is the objection to the old procedure?

The City Manager under sub-section (1) of Section 56 will sign the pay orders.

It is the advice note I am concerned about.

The advice note is what is dealt with here. I may be using the wrong word, but it is the order authorising payments out of the funds.

That is the paying order.

Will the accounts be examined by a finance committee? I think that they should. That is the old procedure and it has always worked well. Under that procedure you do not want one member to sign a paying order, cheque or anything else.

The City Manager is responsible for carrying out this work, and a proposal is put in here that the counter signature of the Lord Mayor, or some other member of the Council, may be required in the advice order to the treasurer in order to control the paying out by the Manager of the Council's funds.

The old system was better.

The position is that there is no longer a useful function for the Finance Committee under the Bill. It is a case of Mr. Gillhooly presenting his paying order to the City Manager, and the City Manager presents that for the examination of the Council. The difficulty, I think, could be easily got over if it was provided that the Lord Mayor, or the chairman of the meeting, should examine the paying order.

May I point out that the word "order" is capable of two applications? It may be applied to the advice that you send to the treasurer of the Corporation intimating that a certain paying order, as I call it, or document which is given to the creditor, will on presentation entitle the person to receive a certain sum of money. That is what, to my mind, is meant by a paying order.

A Deputy

A cheque.

It is not a cheque, for it does not bear any stamp, and I believe it has never been called a cheque, but a paying order. As the section stands the question will arise as to whether every one of these documents issued to individual creditors of the Corporation will have to be countersigned by the Lord Mayor, the City Manager, or some other person appointed by the Council. That question arises on the treasurer's advice note. The Minister must clear up the ambiguity that is there.

Somebody mentioned that the Manager might be found dishonest, or the Lord Mayor might be, and there might be collusion between both. If you had a finance committee, such as you have all over the country, the accounts will be properly examined, and no one need sign or countersign them. They will be submitted to and examined in globo by three members of the committee and signed by them. The paying order is then issued to the Town Clerk.

Whatever bank acts as treasurer of the Corporation receives a facsimile copy.

Of the advice note or paying order.

What is provided for under Section 56 is that the treasurer's advice note authorises payment out of the Corporation fund of certain money. As the Bill stood originally the order was to be signed by the Manager and countersigned by the Town Clerk.

So you are only combining the two offices and not altering it. What was wrong with the old system where the accounts were examined by a finance committee?

What was wrong is that there was no Manager.

Is the Manager to manage the Council or the affairs of the Council?

The Manager is responsible for making payments.

Who is responsible for the inspired drafting of this Bill?

The Manager, under Section 56, is responsible for signing the order to the treasurer authorising payment out of the Corporation funds. As the section stood, and when there was a separate town clerk, he was to countersign every order. Sub-sections (2) and (3) are to enable the Council if they so desire to supervise for any particular period payments made by the Manager, that is to authorise the Lord Mayor if he so desired to require by order in writing that those orders to the treasurer should be submitted to him and signed by him, and that no order to the treasurer under these circumstances would be valid unless it bore the signature of the Lord Mayor. The amendment takes the Lord Mayor out of it as the person who initiates the decision that requires the City Manager's orders submitted. It puts the initiative in that matter into the hands of the Council, and it proposes that whatever period the Council thinks it is desirable they will designate in their resolution requiring that these orders before being passed from the Manager to the treasurer will be submitted by the Manager to the Lord Mayor, or some member of the Council designated by them, for counter-signature, and without that signature they will not be accepted by the treasurer as valid.

Will that permit the Council to appoint a finance committee?

Acting-Chairman

The amendment deals with whether this order is to be signed by the Lord Mayor or by somebody else. I do not think other questions should be brought into the amendment. I think, as a matter of procedure, it would be better to accept or reject the amendment on the Minister's statement.

I do not want to accept the amendment as being final. I would ask the Minister what was wrong with the old system? Has it not worked for years satisfactorily? Every council was kept in touch with the finances of the council. Take Wexford. There are twenty-four members and they are notified to attend previous to the monthly meeting to check accounts. Three out of six are supposed to sign the treasurer's advice note. These are then submitted to a monthly meeting of the Council and examined there and then; the Town Clerk is given authority by the signature of the Mayor alone to issue money orders for items in the treasurer's advice note. That is the way in which these paying orders are issued at present, and it is the best way in which to do it.

Under the managerial system they have nothing to do with it.

Sub-section (1) of Section 56 says that the Manager may by order signed by him and countersigned by the Town Clerk, authorise the making of any payment out of the funds of the Corporation. That has got to be amended now because the Manager and the Town Clerk are the same individual.

Acting-Chairman

That is quite a different matter from the point we are discussing now.

I agree, but the Minister has agreed to consider what arrangement is to be substituted for the arrangement contemplated in the section. For that reason I submit that the Minister might consider the proposal put forward by Deputy Corish, that instead of having a paying order countersigned by the Town Clerk the paying order might be countersigned by the chairman of the Finance Committee. We will have an opportunity of submitting an amendment containing our views between now and the Report Stage. As the Minister will be required to submit an amendment in any case we would ask him, before drafting that amendment, to consider the suggestion made by Deputy Corish.

I am still looking for the meaning of this thing.

Acting-Chairman

The Minister has undertaken to consider that further.

I want to put a question across the House to the Minister. I want to put my difficulty before the House, and I do not want to be interfered with in doing so.

Acting-Chairman

The Deputy is not being interfered with.

I am being interfered with.

Acting-Chairman

I very strongly object to that statement by Deputy Flinn.

Then I withdraw it. It is not clear to me when we appoint an alternative way whether we appoint an addition or whether we appoint a substitute. That is the point that is not clear to me. We have been familiar in this House with Bills drafted by amateurs and we have been familiar with the strictures offered on Bills drafted by amateurs. I must say that we never had a Bill drafted by amateurs which was so utterly indeterminate in every clause as this Bill. This Bill will have to be altered radically. I think it is time that the Minister should have some sense of responsibility for the form in which he throws these things at the House. Nobody knows the meaning of one of these clauses and no lawyer could tell you the meaning. We have had that situation in relation to three sections of the Bill. In each of these cases nobody knew what was meant by the wording. Let us understand the mind of the Minister.

Acting-Chairman

Is the Deputy talking about the amendment now?

Yes, I am. It is utterly indeterminate and the wording is a disgrace from the point of view of its lack of clarity. A plain man in this House should be able to understand an amendment or a section, if he tries to understand it, but no one could understand the meaning of this. The Minister should be ashamed of throwing rubbish like that at the House. I ask again does the section mean whether we appoint an addition or whether we appoint a substitute under the meaning of that clause?

I might suggest to the Minister to substitute the Lord Mayor for some other member of the Council. I do not see how an individual member would be in a better position to sign than the Lord Mayor. It would be otherwise if it were the Chairman of the particular meeting. The Lord Mayor is close at hand during the whole day or during the principal hours of the day; he is convenient to the Manager.

But if the Council were to select somebody other than the Lord Mayor there may be some difficulty in getting him at a convenient time to sign these orders. I think the purpose might be met if it were made to read "The Lord Mayor or Chairman of the particular meeting." Our procedure in Cork is that we have amalgamated the Finance Committee and all these Committees. All the old Committees are now simply one Committee and at a meeting of this Committee the financial statement and the Treasurer's advice note are considered and passed in the usual way. It would be convenient for the chairman of that meeting to sign at that particular meeting. That would be going back to the system that prevailed in the old days.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

This enables the Council to nominate any member other than the Lord Mayor if the circumstances of the case warrant it. As it is only an enabling matter, beyond clearing up what has to be cleared up, we ought perhaps to leave it within the power of the Council to nominate someone else in case the Lord Mayor so desires.

Amendment 117 agreed to.
Section 56, as amended, Section 57 and Section 58 agreed to.

I desire to move amendment 118a:—

Before Section 59 to insert a new section as follows:—

The powers to make contracts for the supply of water and the provisions relating to the contract water rate and the collection and recovery of same contained in the Dublin Corporation Waterworks Act, 1861, and the Dublin Corporation Act, 1890, shall notwithstanding anything in this Act continue in full force.

We may have to review this somewhat at a later stage.

New section agreed to.

Section 59 and 60 agreed to.
SECTION 61.
(1) In the case of every municipal rate made in the city for or in respect of a year prior to the year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1936 the following limitation shall have effect in so far and in so far only as such rate is assessed on the added rural area or on either of the areas which at the passing of this Act constitute an added urban district, that is to say, so much in the pound of any such rate as is raised for any purpose other than defraying the expenses of performing the duties formerly performed by a board of guardians shall not exceed the total amount in the pound of so much of all rates assessed on such area for or in respect of the year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1929 as was raised for any purpose other than defraying the expenses of performing the duties of a board of guardians.

I move amendment 120:—

In sub-section (1), page 28, line 38, and in sub-section (2), page 28, line 51, after the word "guardians" in each case to insert the words "and other than meeting a demand by the Dublin Port and Docks Board under Section 27 of the Dublin Port and Docks (Bridges) Act, 1929."

The amount of money raised for the board of guardians was the amount of money that the urban council or the city council could not affect. In the same way the bridge tax is another charge that the urban or city council could not affect and it is, therefore, of the same nature of charge as the board of guardians. Therefore, any increase there may be in the bridge tax arising, say, out of the making of a new Butt Bridge or anything like that, should be spread over the area to which the bridge tax is referable even though we are stabilising the fundamental urban district rates over a certain number of areas in Rathmines, Pembroke and Killiney.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 61, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 62.
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to or operate to reduce the annual value with reference to which the tax in respect of any buildings under Schedules A and B of the Income Tax Act, 1918, is to be ascertained.

I move amendment 123:

In sub-section (3), page 29, line 13, to delete the word "buildings" and substitute the words "hereditament or tenement."

This is a drafting amendment. It is simply to secure the income tax which is applicable to hereditaments and tenements other than buildings.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 62, as amended, and Section 63 agreed to.
SECTION 64.
Where a hereditament or tenement which is not a small dwelling within the meaning of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928 (No. 4 of 1928) as amended by this Act, is unoccupied at the making of the municipal rate, that rate shall be made upon the owner of such hereditament or tenement, and upon such rate being paid by such owner, such owner shall be entitled to claim and receive from the Corporation a refund of one-twenty-fourth of such rate in respect of every completed month (reckoned from any day of one month to the corresponding day of the next month) during which such hereditament or tenement is unoccupied either for the purpose of the execution of additions, alterations, or repairs thereto or because such owner is bona fide unable to obtain a suitable tenant therefor, in the case of a hereditament or tenement to which the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1923 to 1929 for the time being apply, at the maximum rent for the time being permitted under those Acts or, in the case of any other hereditament or tenement, at a reasonable rent.

I move amendment 124, which is purely a drafting amendment:—

In page 29, line 43, to delete the words "owner of" and substitute the words "person (hereinafter referred to as the owner) who is for the time being entitled to occupy."

Amendment agreed to.
Section 64, as amended, and Section 65, agreed to.
SECTION 66.
(1) The town clerk may from time to time amend any rate or assessment in the municipal rate book by inserting therein the name of any person who ought to have been rated or by striking out the name of any person who ought not to have been rated or by raising or reducing the sum at which a person has been rated or by making such other amendment therein as will make such rate or assessment conformable to the provisions of this Act in regard to the making of the municipal rate.

Amendment 125, which follows, is purely consequential:—

In sub-section (1), page 30, line 14, to delete the words "Town Clerk" and substitute the word "Manager."

Amendment agreed to.
Section 66, as amended, Section 67 and Section 68 agreed to.
SECTION 69.
(5) At a rates meeting or any adjournment thereof under this section the Council may (subject to the subsequent provisions of this section) amend or modify the estimate of expenses required by this section to be considered by them at such meeting, and the Council shall by resolution passed at such meeting or any such adjournment thereof adopt such estimate of expenses either with or without amendment or modification and shall by the same or any subsequent resolution passed by them at such meeting or such adjournment thereof determine in accordance with such estimate as so adopted the rates in the pound to be levied for the several purposes specified in such estimate.
(7) When the further consideration of an amendment or modification of an estimate of expenses is adjourned under the foregoing sub-section of this section, the rates meeting shall, after all business which can lawfully and conveniently be transacted thereat without adjournment is disposed of, be adjourned for not less than fourteen days and at such adjourned meeting the amendment or amendments or modification or modifications which occasioned the adjournment and no other amendment or modification of the said estimate of expenses shall be considered and decided upon and the business of the rates meeting shall be completed.

I promised on Section 69 to introduce an amendment making fourteen days read twenty-one days, so that the Council will have twenty-one days to consider estimates. There are some consequential amendments necessary in that section, all arising out of the abolition of the position of Town Clerk. Amendments 129 and 130 were referred to yesterday. They make it clear that the Council can modify or change in any way it likes the estimates put before it. When the estimate comes up finally for the purpose of discussing some definite modification or amendment where a difference has arisen between the Manager and the Council, that matter can be considered. The drafting of sub-section (7) as it stands is too restricted. I move amendments 129 and 130:—

In sub-section (5), page 31, line 16, to delete the words "or modify" and substitute the words "whether by addition, omission, or variation," and to delete the words "or modification" wherever they occur in the said sub-section (5) and in sub-sections (6) and (7), and also to delete the words "or modifications" in the said sub-section (7), line 41.

In sub-section (7), page 31, line 42, to delete the word "and" and substitute the words "(with or without any modification thereof) but."

Amendments agreed to.
Section 69, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 70.
(5) At a rates meeting or any adjournment thereof under this section the Council may (subject to the subsequent provisions of this section) amend or modify the estimate of expenses required by this section to be considered by them at such meeting, and the Council shall by resolution passed at such meeting or any such adjournment thereof adopt such estimate of expenses either with or without amendment or modification and shall by the same or any subsequent resolution passed by them at such meeting or such adjournment thereof determine in accordance with such estimate as so adopted the rates in the pound to be levied for the several purposes specified in such estimate.

I move amendment 137, which reads:—

In sub-section (5), page 32, line 18, after the word "as" to insert the words "the Council with the approval of."

Amendment agreed to.
Section 70, as amended, agreed to.
Section 71 to 74 agreed to.
SECTION 75.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act of 1925 or the Act of 1927, those portions (including repeals) of the Act of 1925 (other than Part I. thereof) and the Act of 1927 which did not apply before the passing of this Act to the county or the city shall, with the exception of sub-section (2) of Section 57 and Section 82 of the Act of 1925, apply to and have effect in the county and the city with and subject to all such general modifications as may be necessary to enable such application to have effect and with and subject to the following particular modifications, that is to say:—
(a) the fourteenth day after the day which is the day of election for the purposes of this Act shall be substituted for the appointed day throughout the Act of 1925 and also for the 1st day of April, 1925, in Part III. of that Act, and
(b) every provision in either of the said Acts whereby the area of charge for any expenses is altered shall come into operation on the 1st day of April, 1931.

I move amendment 145, which reads:—

In page 34, line 7, after the word "and" to insert the word "of."

It is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 75, as amended, agreed to.
Section 76 and 77 agreed to.
SECTION 78.
(1) Every person who is at the passing of this Act an officer in the service of a local body and, by reason of anything done by, under, or in pursuance of this Act, either—
(a) is removed from office and is not entitled under any enactment other than this Act to compensation for such removal, or
(b) suffers pecuniary loss by reason of his salary or emoluments being reduced,
may be awarded and paid by the local body in whose service he is at the time of such removal or loss or, where that body is the Board of Health, by the County Council such compensation as is hereinafter mentioned for such removal or loss.

I move amendment 146, which is a drafting amendment also. The amendment reads:—

In sub-section (1), page 35, line 23, after the word "office" to insert the words "or ceases to hold office by reason of the abolition of his office," and in line 25, after the word "removal" to insert the words "or cesser," and in line 29, and also in line 31, after the word "removal" to insert the words "cesser," and in sub-section (2), line 47, after the word "office" to insert the words "or ceasing to hold office by reason of the abolition of such office."

Amendment agreed to.
Section 78, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 79 to 84 agreed to.
SECTION 85.
(1) Every statute and every order made under statutory authority whereby, immediately before the appointed day, the City Corporation is required to supply water for use in the urban district of Dun Laoghaire or whereby a price is fixed for such supply or whereby such fixed price may be varied from time to time shall have effect, on and after the appointed day, with the substitution therein of the Borough and the Borough Corporation for the said urban district and the Council thereof.

I am accepting the following amendment:

In sub-section (1), line 47, to delete all words after the word "authority" to the end of the section and substitute the words "and every agreement whereby immediately before the appointed day the City Corporation is required to supply water for use in any of the Coastal Urban Districts shall have effect on and after the appointed day with the substitution therein of the Borough and the Borough Corporation for the said Urban District and the council thereof.

(2) The price of water supplied to the Borough Corporation by the City Corporation for use in the Borough shall be regulated by the statutes and orders made under statutory authority whereby immediately before the appointed day the price is fixed for a supply of water for use in the district of Dun Laoghaire or whereby such fixed price may be varied from time to time."

It may be subject to modification on Report.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 85, as amended, agreed to.
Section 86 and 87 agreed to.

I move amendment 151. It is a safeguarding new section:

Before Section 88 to insert a new section as follows:—

Nothing in this Act shall operate to affect any fishery or fishing right existing at the passing of this Act and situate in or exercisable in respect of any part of the River Liffey or the ownership of the soil of the bed of the said River Liffey."

New section agreed to.

Section 88, 89, 90, 91 and 92 agreed to.

Section 1 of the Bill was left over. Perhaps it would be better to leave over until the next sitting the amendment there.

Section 1 agreed to.
First Schedule, Second Schedule, Third Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for 1st May.
The Dáil adjourned at 1.10 p.m. until Wednesday, 30th April.
Top
Share