I asked the Minister for Local Government a question to-day and, from his reply it occurs to me that he must not as yet be in possession of the full facts in connection with the appointment of officers under the recent Warble Fly (Treatment of Cattle) Order, 1936.
Adjournment Debate. - Appointment of Warble Fly Inspectors.
I hope it is clear that the Adjournment is until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 24th March.
Mr. Bourke
In order that the Minister may be in a position to deal with the situation, I intend to give him the facts as they have been given to me by a member of the council. The facts are that, at a meeting of the Finance Committee of the County Council of Tipperary (North Riding) held in the Courthouse, Nenagh, on Thursday, 6th February, 1936, an inspector from the Department of Agriculture attended in connection with the adoption by the council of the Warble Fly (Treatment of Cattle) Order, 1936. A vote was taken by the committee and the majority voted for the adoption of the Order. Is this a question which should or could be decided by a committee of the council? By circular letter dated 13th February, 1936, from the secretary of the council, all members were notified to attend the quarterly meeting of the council to be held on Wednesday, 19th February, 1936. This letter included the agenda for the meeting and item seven read as follows:—
"To consider the adoption of the Warble Fly (Treatment of Cattle) Order, 1936, and, if adopted, to draw up a scheme, appoint six inspectors to administer the Order and to lay down the conditions of appointment."
Although the adoption of the Order was to be considered by the council of 19th February, an advertisement appeared in the Nenagh Guardian on 15th February, inviting applications for posts of six temporary inspectors, signed by the council's secretary. A very large number of applicants, over 200, made application and each was handed a copy of a leaflet headed: “General Conditions and Duties of Inspectors” to which was attached a schedule setting out the six areas into which the North Riding had been divided for administrative purposes under the Order. The first condition on the leaflet read: “The applicant must now be a resident of the district for which application is made” and the third condition read: “Age limits, 21 to 40 years on 19th February, 1936.”
At the quarterly meeting, without notice to members or applicants, ten inspectors were appointed in lieu of the six vacant posts advertised. The district areas had been completely changed beforehand and the council members of one political Party came to the meeting with a schedule of the altered areas and the change from six to ten vacancies. The other members of the council had no foreknowledge of these changes and when the appointments were made, these changes were challenged by members of the council who were overruled. In making the ten appointments, the council appointed at least one applicant who was considerably over the age limit set out in condition three above quoted in the council's leaflet to applicants. I am not going to ask the Minister whether he has power to sanction those proceedings or not. I think it is a case rather for the application of sanctions in these circumstances, but if the Minister's Department is willing to stand over actions of that kind and over proceedings carried on in that manner, all I have to say is that the Department has altered very much during the last ten or 15 years.
I want to say a few words on this matter. I happen to have some local knowledge and I can inform the Minister, in case he has not got the full report on the matter, that it is looked upon in Tipperary as a public scandal. The position is as Deputy Bourke has described it. The council, at their meeting, decided to appoint six persons and to divide the county into six areas with an inspector for each area. Certain other conditions were laid down and there was a definite age limit. The secretary of the county council issued a notice in the local Press inviting applications for these six posts. The applicants were to be between the ages of 21 and 40. There were over 200 applications received. When the full meeting of the council met to consider the matter, they were faced with a new proposal which came from members of one particular political Party, supporters of the Minister, changing the districts which had been fixed by the meeting of the council which decided to appoint the inspectors, and changing altogether the terms of the advertisement which had been issued, and in answer to which the applications had been received.
It must be remembered that the applications before the council at their meeting on that date were applications received in response to an advertisement which asked for applications to fill six posts, laying down age limits, and so on. Certain members of the council, without any notice, but in order to provide some extra soft jobs for their supporters at the expense of the ratepayers, altered the number of areas from six to ten, and the number of vacancies from six to ten, completely ignoring the age limitation set out in the advertisement. I suggest to the Minister that this was a grossly irregular proceeding and should not be countenanced by him or by his Department. It was unfair to many people who perhaps would have applied if they knew (1) there were going to be ten posts; (2) the districts were to be altered in the way in which they were altered, because, in the original advertisement, one of the regulations laid down was that every person applying should be resident in the district for which he applied. Any person who had intended applying for one of the positions, and who was over the age of 40 years did not apply, because 40 years was specified in the advertisement, but, as Deputy Bourke has said, in order to provide certain people with a number of these posts, when it came to the actual making of the appointments, they ignored completely the age qualifications.
It seems to me that proceedings of that sort are not going to earn respect for public bodies, and particularly such an important body as a county council, and I suggest to the Minister with all respect that he has a definite duty in the matter to see that councils carry out their duties with due regard for the interests of the public and the interests of the ratepayers, and with due regard for the people who will have to pay the salaries of ten instead of six inspectors. The Minister, I think, ought to have seen that the posts were readvertised, if the conditions were to be altered, because people were precluded from applying by the terms of the original advertisement.
If the council decide to increase the number from six to ten and to waive certain conditions which were in the original advertisement, they were not empowered to make the appointments on that date, but should have readvertised under the new conditions and for the increased number of vacancies to give people an opportunity of applying for the positions, if they thought fit. To put it in a nutshell, the whole thing was a slick move on the part of a political majority on the council. The Minister, who is charged with a certain responsibility in the matter as head of the Local Government Department, ought not allow any political Party—it does not matter which Party —to use their majority in that way and to abuse the responsibility placed on them by the electorate by doing business in that slick way for the purpose of finding additional jobs for their supporters.
I am not fully acquainted with the circumstances that Deputies Bourke and Morrissey have set out. As a result of this question being put down, I made certain inquiries and I am told that the county council was informed officially that they were legally entitled to do what they did. I do not see that I have any responsibility in this matter. As these are purely temporary appointments for a very short period, county councils are not bound to seek the sanction of the Department for them. If they had to seek sanction, I would have some opportunity to intervene, but as they are not obliged to ask for sanction the Minister has no power in the matter. The proceedings may have been irregular and undignified, as Deputy Morrissey says. I am not saying that they were, as I have not the full facts. Even if they were, I suggest that the North Tipperary County Council is not the only council against whom the charge of want of dignity could be laid even in this particular matter.
I am not suggesting that. I do not care which Party is responsible.
I am with the Deputy there. There have been undignified proceedings in connection with similar appointments by county councils where the political majority is on the other side. There is not much credit attaching to any of these bodies who have acted in that way, whatever their political complexion may be. As Minister, I am without any power to intervene or even to attempt to correct the procedure in this matter. These are temporary appointments under an Order made by the Minister for Agriculture and they do not come under my jurisdiction in any way. If irregular methods and proceedings in this and similar matters were to be taken cognisance of by the Minister for Local Government he would be kept very busy dealing with all the county councils. In this particular case there is no authority to intervene.
I have been informed that the regulations were made by the finance committee of the county council and it has been put to me that the county council, at their full meeting, had every right to alter the regulations made by the finance committee. That may or may not be so. As I say, I have not got full information on the matter. I have applied for information and I am told that the county council were informed that they had legal power to do what they did and the Minister has no right to interfere with their action in the matter.
There is no questioning of the right of the county council to make the appointments, but I suggest to the Minister that if a county council, over the name of their secretary, publish an advertisement for a given number of appointments, setting forth certain conditions, and then assemble to make the appointments arising out of that advertisement from applicants who have applied under the conditions set forth in that advertisement, that they are not justified in changing the terms of the advertisement and increasing the number of appointments to be made without any notice to anybody, but simply at the behest of a particular majority. I do not care if it was a Fine Gael majority that did it, I would condemn it. I say it is a scandal.
I can quite understand that the Minister has not got as full information as he would like and, therefore, I do not want to press it unduly. But I am not satisfied that the Minister has no function or duty in the matter. I think he has. I put it to the Minister that undoubtedly people were deprived of the right of applying for these positions because of certain conditions set out in the advertisement, which were afterwards wiped out by the county council, or by certain parties on the county council, without any notice. It is news to me that the Minister has no authority or power to act in the matter. It is one of those actions which do not bring any credit on public bodies or increase the respect for them.
Might I ask a question?
One question only. It is not usual to allow anybody outside the county concerned to intervene in matters like this. The regular procedure is to allow only Deputies concerned in the matter to take part in a debate on the adjournment.
When the county council, or the finance committee, advertised a certain number of appointments I presume it meant a certain expenditure. If, at a later meeting, that expenditure was increased without any notice whatever, should not that increased expenditure without notice come within the purview of the Minister?
No.
That is extraordinary.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.50 p.m. until Tuesday, 24th March, at 3 p.m.