County Management Bill, 1939—Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 47:—
Before sub-section (1), page 6, to insert three new sub-sections as follows:—
(1) There shall be two assistant county managers for the County of Dublin.
(2) There shall be three assistant county managers for the County of Cork.
(3) There shall be an assistant county manager for the County of Tipperary, North Riding, and an assistant county manager for the County of Tipperary, South Riding, but one and the same person shall be the assistant county manager for each of those counties.
When the Second Reading was being discussed there was some discussion as to the number of assistant managers. This sets out what assistant managers there shall be. There shall be two for Dublin City and County, one for Tipperary, and three for Cork. That is the only provision.
I would like to draw the Minister's attention again to the suggestion made earlier in the course of the discussion, that in counties where it is proposed and provided for in this section to appoint assistant managers, the Minister would—before the final stages of the Bill are reached —make provision or indicate in some way a preference for the secretaries of the boards of health for those posts.
Nobody has more regard than I have for the secretaries of boards of health, and if I could see some way of giving a preference I would like to do so. I will consider the matter, but at this stage I cannot say.
There must always be three assistant managers in Cork County, for instance? The number cannot be diminished?
I am rather doubtful whether three is not too much for Cork.
The question is, as the amendment stands now, the number cannot be diminished.
I will consider that between now and the Report Stage. I am not quite satisfied that three is not too many. I will leave that in such a position that there can be less.
Mr. Brennan
I do not think that the reason given by the Minister for the insertion of the amendment is satisfactory. The Minister comes to a certain point which was raised about the assistant managers on the Second Reading, and one would imagine that he is fulfilling all the obligations in regard to assistant managers by putting in this amendment. He has still got the right which he had, and rightly so; and, while he is still retaining the power under Section 9—the section we are discussing now—to appoint all the necessary assistant managers, I do not see why he is putting this amendment in the Bill.
I am trying to give an indication.
Mr. Brennan
It appears to me that the Minister is simply fettering himself unduly. Had he not put in this amendment, he would have the same powers under the section. He is tying himself now to three assistant managers in the County Cork and to other people whom he might find later on he would be better off without. It would be better for him to have more elasticity than he has under the section.
Amendment agreed to.
Deputies might consider how far amendments Nos. 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 are met generally by the Minister's amendment No. 57.
Mr. Brennan
As far as my amendments are concerned—49, 53 and 55— I do not know about 56—I am quite satisfied that the Minister's amendment meets the case.
On behalf of Deputy Keyes I move amendment No. 48:—
In sub-section (1), line 43, after the word "Minister," to insert the following words, "with the consent of the county council."
The purpose of the amendment is that in connection with the appointment of assistant managers there should be some consultation with the county council. We are not tied to any particular form. If the Minister could indicate some manner by which county councils would be consulted in the matter it would meet the position.
Of course, all these appointments, as the Deputy knows, are made by the Local Appointments Commission. I am afraid I have no option but to follow the usual practice.
I speak in connection with the necessity for the appointment.
Whether you will have one or not.
Would the Minister agree that county councils might be consulted in connection with that matter?
The county council will be consulted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 49 to 56, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 57:—
In page 6, to add at the end of the section three new sub-sections as follows:—
(4) Whenever and so long as there is in force an order made by the Minister under this section directing that there shall be an assistant county manager or a number of assistant county managers for a particular county, there shall be, for such county, an assistant county manager or a number of assistant county managers, as may be directed by such order or an order amending such order.
(5) The assistant county manager or each of the assistant county managers (as the case may be) for a county shall be called and known as Assistant County Manager (with name of the said county prefixed).
(6) Before making an order under this section in respect of a county, the Minister shall consult with the council of such county.
Amendment agreed to.
Question put: "That Section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I think the question is carried.
Division challenged.
Would the Deputies who claim a division please rise in their places?
Deputies Corish, Murphy and Hurley rose.
The names of these Deputies who have claimed a division will be recorded. The question is carried.
I move amendment No. 58:—
Before Section 10, page 7, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) There shall be two assistant city managers for the County Borough of Dublin each of whom shall be called and known as Dublin Assistant City Manager.
(2) The two offices of Dublin Assistant City Manager and the two offices of Dublin Assistant County Manager shall always be held by the same two persons.
(3) If, immediately before the commencement of this Act, Timothy O'Mahony holds the office of Dun Laoghaire Borough Manager and Town Clerk, he shall, by virtue of this sub-section, be and he is hereby appointed to be a Dublin Assistant City Manager.
(4) In relation to the first appointment to one, but only one, of the offices of Dublin Assistant City Manager (not being the office mentioned in the next preceding sub-section of this section, if the appointment mentioned in that sub-section takes effect) the following provisions, in so far as they are applicable, shall apply and have effect in regard to the selection by the Local Appointments Commissioners of a person to be recommended by them for such appointment, that is to say:—
(a) if the county secretary of the County of Dublin is a candidate and suitable, the said commissioners shall recommend such county secretary;
(b) in this sub-section the word "suitable" means possessing the requisite qualifications for the office of Dublin Assistant City Manager and being, in the opinion of the Local Appointments Commissioners, suitable in all other respects for such appointment, and the expression "county secretary" does not include a temporary county secretary.
(5) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, the office of Dublin Assistant City Manager shall be an office to which the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926 (No. 39 of 1926), applies.
This is a new section. It provides that assistant managers for Dublin City will also be assistant managers for the county.
Was this matter not covered by another amendment?
We are not agreeing to it. We divided the House on this question yesterday.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 40; Níl, 11
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Brady; Níl: Deputies Corish and Murphy.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendment No. 59 not moved.
Section 10 deleted.
SECTION 11.
(3) The provisions of this Act in relation to the doing of acts and things by a county manager shall apply and have effect in relation to the making or revoking of a delegation under the foregoing provisions of this section.
I move amendment No. 60:—
Before Section 11, page 7, to insert a new section as follows:—
11. (1) Every assistant county manager for a county shall be an officer of the council of that county and each of the Dublin Assistant City Managers shall be an officer of the Corporation of Dublin.
(2) Every office of assistant county manager shall be an office to which the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926 (No. 39 of 1926), applies.
(3) Every assistant county manager for a county (other than the County of Dublin) shall be paid by the council of that county such remuneration as the Minister shall from time to time direct, and the moneys required for the payment of such remuneration shall be raised by the said council as a county-at-large charge.
(4) Before or as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the Minister may appoint a person to hold any office of assistant county manager created by this Act or either office of Dublin Assistant City Manager (not being an office to which an appointment is made by this Act) until a person has been appointed to that office in accordance with the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926 (No. 39 of 1926).
This makes provision for assistant managers to be officers of a council.
Mr. Brennan
Will there be any such official as an officer of Dublin County Council?
Yes, the two assistant managers will also be assistant managers for County Dublin.
Mr. Brennan
Mr. Brennan
This sub-section would apparently deprive them of the chance of being officers unless they are going to have a kind of dual capacity.
They will only be officers of the corporation.
Mr. Brennan
So that there will not be any manager at all an officer of the county council?
The county manager will be an officer of the Dublin County Council.
The Minister will admit that there is a lack of symmetry about it. I should have thought, following the line adopted in regard to the manager, that each of these managers would be officers of the three councils.
Surely that is what ought to be done?
I will look into it between now and the Report Stage.
The remarks about the county council apply also to the Borough of Dun Laoghaire. I entirely agree with what Deputy Brennan has said that there must be some effort to co-ordinate all the knowledge in the minds of the senior officers of both the county council and the Borough Council of Dun Laoghaire. Some effort ought to be made to co-ordinate that knowledge at the fountain head.
Mr. Brennan
Sub-section (2) of the new section sets out that every office of assistant county manager shall be an office to which the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, applies. They are going to be selected by the Appointments Commission. By whom are they to be appointed? According to a previous section, the fact that a county manager is selected means that he is thereby appointed, but that does not follow in the case of assistant county managers.
No, they will be appointed on the recommendation of the Appointments Commissioners by the county manager. It is really in substitution of the former provision whereby the county council, on the recommendation of the Appointments Commissioners, made the appointments. The county manager will make the appointments now instead of the county council.
Mr. Brennan
I wonder is that clear, because an assistant manager is not in the position of an ordinary official?
It is not a reserved function of the county council.
Mr. Brennan
I know it is not, but take the case we have mentioned, the case of Dublin, where you have two assistant managers. Will any difficulty arise there? Still, of course, that is to be looked into by the Minister.
The Minister is going to make the assistant managers officers of the three bodies in question?
Unless there is some difficulty about it. I will consider it between now and Report Stage and see if there is any peculiar objection.
Surely it is desirable? I do not see how it is going to work otherwise. You will have a completely lop-sided business, if it is not done.
Mr. Brennan
Does the Minister think that any question of urgency will arise which would compel him to act under sub-section (4), which sets out that he may appoint a person to hold any office of assistant county manager or either office of Dublin Assistant City Manager until the Appointments Commissioners have time to select some person?
I do not think so, in practice.
We were under the impression that the city and county manager would have two assistants and that one of these might be detailed to do work for the borough council, and the other for the county, and he may possibly be an officer of a body for which he will be doing no work.
There is some difficulty, I understand, but I will see if it can be got over. You might have one body dismissing him, and the other not dismissing him, but I think it will be got over.
That would apply to the manager, too, of course?
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 61:—
In sub-section (3), page 7, lines 26 and 27, to delete the words "of acts and things", and in line 27, after the word "manager", to insert the words "of acts and things for the council of his county which, if done by such council, would be required by law (other than this Act) to be done by resolution of such council".
The provisions as to the way in which the manager will act as to signing orders, keeping a register and so on, are set out in Section 15.
Mr. Brennan
I do not think the Minister is finished speaking. Is he going to relate Section 15 to Section 11 in some way?
Yes. This is necessary in order to relate it to Section 15.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 61:—
In sub-section (3), page 7, lines 26 and 27, to delete the words "of acts and things", and in line 27, after the word "manager", to insert the words "of acts and things for the council of his county which, if done by such council, would be required by law (other than this Act) to be done by resolution of such council".
Is amendment No. 61 agreed to?
No, we are not assenting to it.
Amendment No. 61 put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 62:—
At the end of the section, page 7, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) The foregoing sub-sections of this section shall apply and have effect in relation to the County Borough of Dublin as if the County Borough of Dublin were a county and the Dublin City Manager and the Dublin Assistant City Managers were respectively county Manager and assistant county managers for that county and as if a reference to Section 60 of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930 (No. 27 of 1930), were substituted for the reference to the provisions of this Act in relation to the doing by a county manager of acts and things for the council of his county.
This is to apply the previous sub-sections to the County Borough of Dublin, and is consequential.
Amendment agreed to.
Question put: "That Section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I think the question is carried.
Division challenged.
Would the Deputies who claim a division please rise in their places?
Deputies Corish, Murphy and Hurley rose.
As only three Deputies have risen in their places, a division cannot take place. The question is carried, and the names of those Deputies challenging a division will be recorded.
SECTION 12.
(1) If and whenever the county manager is on vacation or is, through illness, absence from his county, or suspension from performance of his duties, temporarily incapable of executing the functions of his office, a deputy county manager may be appointed under this section for the duration of such vacation or incapacity, but may be removed under this section at any time during such vacation or incapacity.
(3) In every case the power of removing a deputy county manager under this section shall be exercisable only by the Minister or by the chairman of the county council with the consent of the Minister.
I move amendment No. 63:—
Before Section 12, page 7, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) As soon as conveniently may be after the commencement of this Act the remuneration payable to the Dublin City Manager by the Corporation of Dublin shall be reconsidered and shall be fixed, as from such commencement, with due regard to the fact that the holder of the office of Dublin City Manager also holds the office of Dublin County Manager.
(2) The remuneration of the Dublin Assistant City Managers shall be fixed with due regard to the fact that each holder of the office of Dublin Assistant City Manager also holds the office of Dublin Assistant County Manager.
(3) As soon as may be after the close of every local financial year ending after the commencement of this Act, the council of the county of Dublin shall pay to the Corporation of Dublin such portion of the cost of management (as defined in the next following sub-section of this section) in that local financial year as bears to the full amount of such cost of management the same proportion as the aggregate of the amounts of the valuations of rateable property in the county of Dublin in force under the Valuation Acts in the said local financial year bears to the total of the aggregates of the amounts of the valuations of rateable property in the county borough of Dublin and in the county of Dublin respectively in force as aforesaid.
(4) For the purpose of this section, the expression "cost of management" means, in relation to any local financial year, the sum arrived at by ascertaining the total of all remuneration (including travelling and other personal expenses, if any) paid by the Corporation of Dublin in respect of that year to the Dublin City Manager and the Dublin Assistant City Managers respectively and deducting from that total all sums paid in pursuance of this section to the Corporation of Dublin in respect of said local financial year by any joint body.
(5) The council of the County of Dublin shall pay to the Corporation of Dublin such proportion of all superannuation granted after the commencement of this Act to a Dublin City Manager or a Dublin Assistant City Manager as shall be agreed upon between such council and such corporation or, in default of such agreement, as shall be determined by the Minister.
(6) In the fixing, whether by agreement or by the Minister, of the proportion of any superannuation to be paid under the next preceding sub-section of this section by the council of the County of Dublin to the Corporation of Dublin, regard shall be had to the total amounts of the valuations in force under the Valuation Acts of rateable property in the County Borough of Dublin and in the County of Dublin respectively and to the period during which the officer receiving such superannuation performed duties in respect of the County of Dublin.
(7) Where the Dublin City Manager is also manager for a joint body the functional area of which is partly within and partly outside the area consisting of the County Borough of Dublin and the County of Dublin such joint body shall pay annually to the Corporation of Dublin such sum as the Minister shall determine.
(8) Where the Dublin County Manager is also a manager for a joint body the functional area of which is partly within and partly outside the area consisting of the County Borough of Dublin and the County of Dublin, such joint body shall pay annually to the Corporation of Dublin such sum as the Minister shall determine.
(9) The moneys required for making the payments which the council of the County of Dublin is required by this section to make to the Corporation of Dublin shall be raised by the said council as a county-at-large charge and shall be in addition to and not in substitution for any payment which the said council may be required under Section 47 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), to make to the Corporation of Dublin.
This is a machinery amendment. Its provisions deal with the contribution that should be made by the county to the city corporation. So far as the county and city are concerned it will have to be on the rateable valuation. With regard to the joint bodies we tried to find some way of getting it, but I am afraid it will have to be left to the Minister to say what would be considered to be the work done by or for the joint bodies and to see what amount should be put against them. The rateable valuation of Dublin City, I think, is £2,000,000, and on the county it is £600,000. That proportion would work out, so far as the city and county manager is concerned, at a relationship of about one-fourth so far as the county is concerned.
Do I understand that the actual salary will be paid to the manager by the city?
It will be paid by the corporation, and they will have a right to recover the appropriate proportion from the county.
Yes, I know, but I really thought that these bodies would be put on a level and each would pay its proportion of the salary.
This is only a question of machinery.
Yes, but it is subordinating the county to the city. I understood that the manager had a salary of £2,000, and you decide, by valuation, that £1,200 will be paid by the city and the rest by the other body, and that each will pay directly to its own manager the sum necessary.
Valuations may change from time to time.
This bears out what we stated on previous amendments, that the county has now become subordinate to the city. I should like to know from the Minister does this visualise an increase of salary for the city manager?
He will surely have to get something in addition.
Something to enable him to meet the higher cost of living?
This is in striking contrast to the strike position at the moment.
Can the Minister give us any indication of what the increase will be?
I do not think it will be very much—I could not say.
What is the present salary of the city manager?
Take us as being against this amendment.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Deputies Corish, Murphy, Hurley and Hannigan will be recorded as dissenting.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 not moved.
Mr. Brennan
I do not think that the Minister would like us to start that discussion once more. We will wait until the Report Stage to reopen that matter.
These amendments involve the same principle as was discussed on an earlier amendment.
Mr. Brennan
I do not think there would be any point in raising a discussion on this again. We intend to put in an amendment for the Report Stage and we can deal with the matter then.
Question proposed: "That Section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Brennan
With regard to Section 12 (2), relating to the removal of the deputy county manager, it is stated:—
"the power of appointing a deputy county manager under this section shall be exercisable at any time during such vacation or incapacity only by the chairman of the county council."
In sub-section (3) it is stated:—
"In every case the power of removing a deputy county manager under this section shall be exercisable only by the Minister or by the chairman of the county council with the consent of the Minister."
What I want to know from the Minister is this. Suppose there was a meeting of the county council and suppose 30 members of the county council wanted him removed and the chairman did not, what would the situation be? Would the chairman prevail? Why is it the chairman is put in? I am merely asking for information. Of course, the Minister may think there is a degree of urgency.
The point is that the council might not be meeting.
Would the point be met by saying that the chairman can appoint a deputy county manager who shall hold office until the next meeting of the county council, when the county council can either confirm the appointment or appoint another deputy county manager?
It is only for short periods.
I think the point would be met satisfactorily by leaving it purely in the hands of the chairman until the county council would meet.
We will see if we can meet that.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 43; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Flynn, John.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Seán Brady; Níl: Deputies Corish and Murphy.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 13.
(1) Neither the council of a county nor any elective body shall directly exercise or perform any power, (other than a power which is vested by law (including this Act) in such council or body and is by this Act expressly made exercisable by resolution of such council or body), function, or duty of such council or body in relation to the officers or servants of such council or body, or the control, supervision, service, remuneration, privileges, superannuation, or compensation for loss of office of such officers or servants or any of them.
I move amendment No. 66:—
In sub-section (1), page 8, lines 41 and 42, to delete the words "superannuation, or compensation for loss of office" and substitute the words "or superannuation".
This amendment and amendment No. 69 are consequential on amendment No. 2.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 67:—
At the end of the section, page 9, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(9) The council of a county or of an elective body may by resolution passed by two-thirds majority, and notice of which must be served not less than seven days before its consideration on each member of such council, direct the county manager to perform such statutory duty or duties as but for the said resolution would devolve on the council of such county.
I do not know that a council has power to delegate to the manager something which, possibly, it ought to do itself. It may be that for some reason or other it could not do it, and it may be a very trifling matter. I think it might be well if that were remedied.
But you might have a council that wanted to delegate some unpopular duty to the manager such, for instance, as the striking of the rate. I do not think that could be done.
Mr. Brennan
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 68:—
At the end of the section, page 9, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(9) Nothing in this section shall operate to prevent a county council or an elective body demanding a sworn inquiry into matters affecting the carrying on of their duties by the staff.
I think that if one were to take a narrow view of sub-section (1) of Section 13, one could read into it that a council is prohibited from discussing anything in relation to its officers or servants. If that be so, I would like to know what my position as a member of a county council would be if, for instance, I had personal knowledge that certain officers of the council were not doing their duty, and that I was strongly of the opinion that the manager was not compelling them to do it. Surely, as a member of the county council I should be entitled to raise that matter. But, as I read this sub-section, I think that if I attempted I could be prevented from having the matter discussed by the council.
I do not think so. There is nothing to prevent a council making any representations it wishes to the Minister, and nothing to prevent it from demanding a sworn inquiry.
Mr. Brennan
I am afraid it seems tightly drawn in relation to officers, "control and supervision". If I were to raise the point that the control and supervision of the manager was not what it ought to be, would I be debarred from doing so by the section?
There is nothing to prevent the council at any time making representations for a sworn inquiry.
This is a rather important amendment. We have experience of the working of the Act in Cork, and probably I can speak with more experience in that respect than the Minister. This proposal is practically a repetition of what is in the Cork City Management Act and under that Act the manager has complete control over the staff. It happened in Cork that high officials in the corporation service felt they had a grievance, and they had no means of bringing it before the corporation except through the manager. Surely when the complaint is against the manager, it is rather an invidious position for the accused to pass it on to the Minister. The whole matter requires to be looked into very carefully. With regard to a sworn inquiry the Corporation of Cork had what they considered to be a very glaring case of inefficiency amongst certain officials. I am not going to say whether the city manager was included in that or not, but they put up what was a very strong case to the Minister, demanding a sworn inquiry about the acquisition of a site for a fever hospital, and the demand was turned down. Not only was that the case but repeated demands from the corporation were turned down. The demand of the corporation was unanimous. If that has been the practice under the Act at present in operation, I do not think the Minister's hopes of an improvement with regard to the operation of this Bill under county council management will be any better. Where the opinion of a council is flouted that causes dissatisfaction. On the Second Reading I pointed out that there was a good volume of opinion in Cork in favour of this system when it was first brought into operation. At present, I do not think even one member of the corporation would be in favour of it, because the snags in the working of it have caused dissatisfaction. I ask the Minister to consider the section very carefully, to see if safeguards could be put in that will ensure the position of the council in some satisfactory manner, rather than leaving the wording as it is. The Minister said the council could demand an inquiry, but unless that is definitely laid down in the Bill they will have no function. While Deputy Brennan's amendment goes some way to meet the position, the Minister should look more carefully into it. I am not in any way biased against the system, but I speak from ten years' experience of its working.
Apparently the corporation in that case demanded a sworn inquiry and whether they got it or not was another matter. There is nothing to prevent a body of ratepayers, not to mention the corporation, demanding a sworn inquiry on bringing certain facts to the notice of the Department. Any official can put his case before the Minister without going to the council.
If the council asks the manager for a reason why a certain thing is permitted or why a certain thing was not done, are they not entitled to an answer?
He is bound to give any necessary information.
Then there is nothing to prevent a county council criticising the management of the staff?
Mr. Brennan
It appears to Deputy Hurley that the right to a sworn inquiry is there, but what I am afraid of is that the section is so tightly drawn that it will make local authorities feel they have no power. If that impression got abroad it would be bad. The right should be left to local authorities to raise these matters at meetings of the council. I am not satisfied that they can do so under the section.
Allow the councils to regulate their own procedure. The manager is supposed to attend the meetings, and he can tell the councils that he has certain functions, but there is nothing to prevent these bodies passing a resolution demanding an inquiry into any matter.
Mr. Brennan
I agree, but the manager may say that it is in relation to the officers, over which the council has no control, and no right to interfere with his supervision.
That does not prevent councils bringing to the notice of the Department that somebody is not doing his duty or is exceeding his duty.
Supposing you have a subordinate official and he approaches members of the county council, or the corporation, is he misbehaving by doing so.
A civil servant who approaches members of this House is supposed to be misbehaving.
Some of them find a way of doing it.
Who will forward the resolution of the council?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put: "That Section 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 11.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Flynn, John.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Cole, John J.
- Corish, Richard.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and S. Brady; Níl: Deputies Corish and Murphy.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 14.
(2) Every county manager shall exercise and perform for the council of his county all the executive functions of such council and, in particular, all powers (other than a power which is vested by law (including this Act) in such council and is by this Act expressly made exercisable by resolution of such council), functions, and duties of such council in relation to the officers and servants of such council and the control, supervision, service, remuneration, privileges, superannuation, and compensation, of such officers and servants.
I move amendment No. 69:—
In sub-section (2), page 9, line 30 and in sub-section (3), page 9, lines 37 and 38, to delete the words "superannuation and compensation" and substitute in each case the words "and superannuation".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 70:—
Before sub-section (3) to insert the following new sub-section:—
(3) (a) If, and whenever, the office of secretary of the county council becomes vacant at any time after the passing of this Act, the county manager shall, if he proceeds to fill the vacancy in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, appoint to the position the person who, immediately before the commencement of this Act held the office of secretary to the board of health in the administrative county if such person is available and, in the opinion of the county manager, suitable to fill the position;
(b) if no person is appointed in pursuance of the foregoing paragraph of this sub-section, the county manager shall, if he proceeds to fill the position in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, appoint to the position a person who, immediately before the commencement of this Act, had held the office of secretary to a board of health elsewhere than in the said administrative county if such person is available and, in the opinion of the county manager, suitable to fill the position.
The object of the amendment is to try to maintain the principle of promotion in the service; that is to say, that after the selection of the first county manager is disposed of, if there is a vacancy for the secretaryship of the county council, the secretary of the board of health should be promoted to the position. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in that. I think it will be agreed that there are many secretaries of boards of health who would be eligible for the position as they are very capable men, and I suggest to the Minister that he should accept the amendment.
I do not think I could accept the amendment. You cannot restrict the manager in the selection of his staff. Naturally, the secretary of the board of health will be considered by him. Secretaries of boards of health will not suffer anything if they are not selected as secretaries of county councils. They will lose nothing by the boards of health being amalgamated with the county councils. In some counties you have an assistant secretary—I think in Kerry and some other counties. While secretaries of boards of health will be considered for this position in view of the volume of work that devolves upon them, you cannot put in a restrictive clause like this.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 48.
Tá
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Coburn, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Flynn, John.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Killilea, Mark.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Corish and Murphy; Níl: Deputies Smith and Seán Brady.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 71:—
Before sub-section (5) to insert the following new sub-section:—
(5) In the performance of the executive functions of a council, every county manager shall perform such functions, subject to the same limitations as were by law or regulations imposed on local authorities before the coming into force of this Act.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the protection enshrined in the regulations at the present time will be continued under the managerial system.
Article 46 of the Regulations of 1924, contains the following provision: "The board of health may, at their discretion, suspend from the discharge of his duties any officer except the secretary, chaplain or treasurer." The purpose of this amendment, which is not very far reaching, is to continue that protection. If the protection is provided anywhere else in the Bill, I am prepared to leave the matter in the Minister's hands.
The amendment is unnecessary. The manager must exercise his functions in accordance with law and with the regulations.
So that that particular regulation is covered?
Of course, the board of health is abolished.
But the officers of the board of health are not in any worse position than they were?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 72:
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
The powers of surcharge against members of the council of a county or members of an elective body shall not be exercisable in any case in which payments are made on the advice, direction or recommendation of the county manager.
This amendment is not necessary. The manager alone will be the person who will make payments and only he or his deputy will be liable to surcharge.
Mr. Brennan
Will there be any such thing as treasurer's advice notes, which are signed at present by certain members of the county council who are responsible in law for them?
A new Public Bodies Order will have to be made.
Mr. Brennan
I hope that point will not be missed.
The Finance Committee of the county council will disappear altogether?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: That Section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Many people hold that, when this Bill is passed, no man with any self-respect will become a member of any local body. The functions of members will be virtually nil. The position is ridiculous because, although members of county councils have no function, if they like to combine, they can hold up practically the whole service and probably will. I would not blame them if they did. They will be in the position of nonentities. Yet, Section 5 provides:—
A county manager shall not affix the official seal of the council of a county or of an elective body to any document save in the presence of the chairman of such council or body or ... in the presence of a member of such council or body nominated in that behalf by such council or body.
They have only to combine to turn the whole managerial system into a farce. The manager cannot affix the seal to a document without the chairman's consent.
The same provisions are contained in the City Managements Acts and the Deputy must have voted for some of them.
His eyes have been opened.
Mr. Brennan
This is a very small democratic safeguard and I should like to see it in the Bill.
There is a split in the Party.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 10.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Flynn, John.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George C.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Coburn, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and S. Brady; Níl: Deputies Corish and Murphy.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 15.
(1) Every act or thing done or decision taken by a county manager for the council of his county or an elective body which, if done or taken by such council or elective body would be required by law to be done or taken by resolution of such council or elective body, shall be done or taken by such county manager by an order in writing signed by him and containing a statement of the time at which it was so signed.
(3) Every order made by a county manager under this section shall for all purposes be deemed to be made at the time at which it is signed by such county manager, and every such order shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been so signed at the time stated in that behalf in such order.
(4) Every county manager shall keep, in respect of the council of his county, a register in which shall be entered a copy of every order made by him under this section for such council, and such county manager shall, at every meeting of such council, produce for the inspection of the members of such council so much of such register as contains any such orders so made since the next previous meeting of such council.
(6) Every document purporting to be an order made and signed by a county manager shall, without proof of the signature of the person purporting to sign such document or that such person was such county manager, be received in evidence and shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to be an order duly made and signed by such county manager under this section and to have been so signed at the time stated in that behalf therein.
(7) Every document purporting to be certified in writing by a county manager to be a true copy of an order made by such county manager under this section shall, without proof of the signature of the person purporting so to certify or that such person was such county manager, be received in evidence and shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to be evidence of the contents of the order of which it purports to be a copy and of the fact that such order was duly made and signed by such county manager under this section at the time stated in that behalf therein.
I move amendment No. 73:—
Before Section 15, page 9, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Save as is otherwise provided by the next following sub-section of this section, any power vested, by virtue of an enactment in force at the passing of this Act, in the council of a county or in an elective body to appoint at their discretion a committee for a purpose connected with their powers, functions, or duties may, after the commencement of this Act, be exercised by such council or elective body (as the case may be) by resolution.
(2) Any power vested, by virtue of an enactment in force at the passing of this Act, in the council of a county or in an elective body to delegate to a committee appointed by such council or elective body any power, function, or duty which is an executive function of such council or elective body (as the case may be) shall, after the commencement of this Act, be exercisable only by the county manager for the county of such council or by the manager for such elective body (as the case may be) but subject in every case to the consent of the Minister.
This enables councils to appoint committees except, of course, a committee for rating purposes. They cannot delegate executive powers to these committees. They are reserved to the manager, except that the manager can delegate executive powers with the consent of the Minister.
Would the Minister give some examples of what he has in mind?
I can think of the case of public assistance committees.
Mr. Brennan
They are already provided for in the Public Assistance Bill.
The council may consider library committees necessary.
Would these committees be vested with statutory power and given authority over spending?
That would be only at the will of the county manager.
The manager could delegate to them, with the consent of the Minister, executive powers or, as they have just been called, statutory powers.
From experience of the managerial system as it has been worked, have such committees been appointed?
I think you have library committees in Dublin.
My experience is that no serious notice is taken of any committee under the managerial system.
Mr. Brennan
I can visualise various occasions in which committees could function under this Bill.
If the Deputy were in the thick of it, he would think differently.
Mr. Brennan
For instance, there is a Bill regarding seeds and fertilisers going through at present.
Mr. Brennan
I cannot forget about it, since I happen to be a member of a sub-committee of the county council which goes into the merits of the claims made under it. In the same way we have a sub-committee which deals with applications under the Small Dwellings Act. I think it will be found that committees are necessary.
Deputy Brennan is talking of what exists at the present time. Does he not know that his little committee will have as much authority as the man in the moon when this is passed, that if such committees are appointed they will have no authority? There is a committee at present under the Dublin Corporation which is dealing with ten times as much money as the committee the Deputy mentioned, but it will be a managerial function. Talk about seeds and fertilisers! £6,000 for the whole country!
What about the negotiating committee?
A negotiating committee for what? Was that not considered by the Minister?
I did not intend my interjection to be taken in that light.
Mr. Brennan
It seems extraordinary that people who are opposed to the Managerial Bill are also opposed to any little committee of inquiry that would possibly help the people against the manager.
Mr. Brennan
Excuse me, I want to make my speech.
Mr. Brennan
Yes, very difficult. There is need for some provision. Take the Seeds and Fertilisers Bill as an example. Be the amount small or large—it does not matter—certain people in the country are of necessity applying to the county council for assistance. Deputies Belton and Corish wish to leave that completely in the hands of the manager. I want, at least, if there is a manager, that there should be a sub-committee to go into the merits of the applications from various people; they could do that better than the manager. It seems to me that this is a democratic safeguard, but Deputies Corish and Belton will not have it.
It is not as easy as all that to humbug Deputies Corish and Belton. This question of a committee is only one of make-believe. Any power given to public representatives comes from the people and not from the manager.
Mr. Brennan
I want to keep it with the people, but Deputy Corish wants to keep it with the manager.
Let us take the Seeds and Fertilisers Bill. What power will your sub-committee have? They will suffer the odium of examining cases; if the manager turns them down the sub-committee is left in odium.
Mr. Brennan
What is the Deputy's alternative?
If I were supporting the County Management Bill I would say that, if there is to be a manager, let him be a manager. Any little dodge that is tried in this way counts for nothing. He has the sole authority for the spending of money, and he must take the responsibility. Anything that passes out under the Seeds and Fertilisers Act he must take responsibility for. It is he that will lend the money, not the committee. He will be responsible for the repayment of that money, not the committee. What is the committee to do? No committee of grown-ups is going to take a thing seriously if they have no responsibility. I have worked under three or four managers and I use the word "under" advisedly because the committee are working under them, not with them. Everyone of them, as a human being, likes to run as smoothly as possible with the councils and they will let them set up little committees as toys for the "children" to play with. If you are giving power to him, give him the responsibility. Let him do the work and earn his money.
I have considerable difficulty in understanding this amendment, and I am possibly not alone in that. As I understood the Minister's introductory remarks he said that the idea of this amendment is to allow that committees may be set up as heretofore and the manager may, with the consent of the Minister, delegate certain powers to these committees. Is that a correct interpretation of what the Minister said?
Would the Minister say where it says that because as I read sub-section (2) of the amendment it says:—
Any power vested, by virtue of an enactment in force at the passing of this Act, in the council of a county or in an elective body to delegate to a committee appointed by such council or elective body any power, function, or duty which is an executive function of such council or elective body (as the case may be) shall, after the commencement of this Act, be exercisable only by the county manager for the county of such council or by the manager for such elective body (as the case may be) but subject in every case to the consent of the Minister.
There is no reference to a committee in that sub-section. It says definitely:—
"exercisable only by the county manager for the county of such council or by the manager for such elective body."
There is no reference to any committee.
I wish to refer to the point that any powers vested in any committees which are set up are only the powers that are vested in them at the moment, but these powers will be absolutely taken away and they will have no powers at all. The manager may over-ride any decision they may take.
I will look into that point. It may be subject to the provisions of this Act, but that was the intention.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 74:—
In sub-section (1), page 9, line 56, after the word "law" to insert in brackets the words "(other than this Act)".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 74a and 74b may be taken together.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 74a:—
At the end of sub-section (3) to add the words "and shall provide for members of the council copies of such orders as members shall require".
Amendment No. 74b reads:
At the end of sub-section (4) to add the words "and shall provide for members of the council copies of such orders as members shall require".
Under sub-section (4) every county manager shall keep, in respect of the council of his county, a register in which shall be entered a copy of every order made by him for such council, and such county manager shall, at every meeting of such council, produce for the inspection of the members of such council so much of such register as contains any such orders so made since the next previous meeting of such council. I am proposing in the amendment that he shall provide for members of the council copies of such orders as members shall require. If we are to keep councils at all conversant with the work which they are doing and which the manager is doing they ought to be provided with copies of the orders. I do not at all agree that it is enough that there is a register at the meeting, possibly under the manager's elbow or the chairman's elbow that members of a county council have a right to look at. I do not think that that is enough at all. There may be ten, 30 or 40 members. They ought each to have a copy of the orders made by the manager since the previous meeting of the county council. Unless that is done the members of the county council are no better informed than the public. They have a right to look at the register, but I insist that they have a right to get a copy of the orders made. Previously the orders were made by themselves and they got a copy of the minutes. They ought to be entitled to discuss the work which the manager has done since the previous meeting of the county council. They cannot do that unless they have a copy of the orders. I do not see any other way in which we can meet what I feel is the rightful demand of the members of the county council for information. For that reason I am moving these amendments.
I think it is unnecessary because they will be produced for their inspection at the meetings, but, in addition to that, under Section 19, the manager must afford all information that is required by members. No difficulty has been experienced in practice in the city councils where that is in operation. I imagine, if the council make an order that they must be furnished with this information, that they consider it necessary information, the manager must give it to them. Under Section 19 he must afford all information the council requires.
Mr. Brennan
If he stands upon this section, he could say: "I am furnishing all the information you require. It is there in that book." I do not see how that is got over as the section stands. I think the members are entitled to more than that. There may be monthly meetings or quarterly meetings and the members are not informed as to what has taken place. They may want to criticise some of the work the manager has done. They are entitled to do that, according to the Minister a while ago. He says they are. If they are they ought to know what he has done or has not done. Consequently, I do maintain that it is essential to have the members informed and the only way of doing that is to place in their hands at the meeting or previous to the meeting a list of the relevant orders.
I think the Minister can accept that amendment as a reasonable one because, in practice, it is done. It is done in the Cork Corporation in a fashion. The old committees of the corporation still exist—law and finance, public works, public health and so on. The manager is, of course, the committee and makes certain orders. Then, at what we call the general purposes meeting, one of these documents is passed along giving what has been done by each of these committees and the corporation discusses that at their meeting. It might be as well to put that amendment into the Bill so as to ensure that it will be done under the new Act. Of course, the manager told us on one occasion that he need not do that, that they could come along and look at it.
Mr. Brennan
The corporation insisted. I do not think it will create any great difficulties if that amendment is put into the Bill.
I was about to suggest that Deputy Brennan's point would be met on the lines of Deputy Hurley's remarks. The practice in the Dublin Corporation is that the city manager presents to every council meeting a report of the most important items which he has dealt with during the previous month. I do not know whether he is required to do that by law. I am not sufficiently well acquainted with the Act, but he does in fact do that. He submits to every monthly meeting a report of what has taken place during the previous month. If there is no such requirement here then I think a requirement might be incorporated in the Bill to the effect that a summarised statement would be given of the business he had transacted during the previous month.
Would the Minister accept that?
I will look into it. There is no objection. It is not necessary but I have no objection to it at all.
Mr. Brennan
As a matter of fact, I discussed this yesterday with a member of the Limerick Corporation and he says that he and other members find it a great drawback there that they are not supplied with copies of the orders. I cannot say whether they ever asked for them or not but I am afraid that under that section as it stands the manager could, if he so desired, stand upon that section and refuse to give copies.
I do not think he could refuse.
Mr. Byrne
I would suggest that the Minister himself should bring in an amendment to cover this point. It would ease the minds of a great many members who are against the principle of the city manager system. It would be a deplorable thing if a city manager were appointed who thought that under the Bill he had certain powers, who started to ignore the members of his council and to refuse to give them any information because there is nothing in the Act to compel him at the moment to give them that information. May I say here that, while I have voted against many sections of the Bill, we in Dublin have been very fortunate in our experience of the city manager system. We have had three managers since the original Bill was passed and these three managers always consulted the people's representatives on the council, accepted advice from them very often and, I should say, as often gave them advice. I understand, however, that at least one area has had an experience where the manager refused to give information. He felt that he was the principal man, that the members counted for nothing and he ruled accordingly. If you want to inspire confidence in those who will be controlled under the county managership system, you must create the feeling amongst the people that if their representatives want information from the manager, he will not have power to refuse them that information. I suggest that it would be a deplorable thing if you had the misfortune to appoint a county manager anywhere in Ireland who took to himself the full powers under the Bill and was not broad-minded enough to consult the members of the council. They must work in harmony and I suggest that the same system that prevails in Dublin City should apply elsewhere. I do not want any misunderstanding, or that anybody should take it that I am against the city manager system. Dublin City as I say has been most fortunate in the operation of that system.
Under sub-section (4) the county manager is bound to keep a register but he is only bound "to produce for the inspection of the members of such council so much of such register as contains any such orders so made since the next previous meeting of the council." Supposing the council wants to deal with an order made prior to the last meeting, according to that sub-section he is not bound to produce the order.
He is bound to produce any information they want.
The sub-section does not say so.
Look at Section 19. Section 19 would cover that. I have no objection to the principle of the amendment. My idea all the time is that the managers should work in cooperation with the councils and give their members all the information and assistance they want. If the Deputy will withdraw the amendment I shall introduce an amendment on the Report Stage dealing with it.
Mr. Brennan
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I should like to put it to the Minister that there is more involved in this than merely allowing the members to know what the manager is doing.
I am accepting the principle of the amendment.
I would suggest that a better principle, instead of circulating copies of orders made or records of work done by the manager, would be to provide by statute, that a record must be produced in the form of a report by the manager at the next subsequent meeting.
He is bound to do that, as the section stands. He keeps a register and he must produce it for their inspection. I felt that that was sufficient.
I suggest to Deputy Brennan then that that pretty well covers it.
The amendment has been withdrawn, unless the Deputy objects to its withdrawal.
Oh, no, but I suggest that not many county councillors will read or study a lot of little orders that are sent out from day to day, but if they are brought before them at the subsequent meeting, there may be a discussion and they will be forced then to read them if they have not already read them. Somebody will raise the question and by the time the meeting is over pretty well every member of the council will be au fait with all that is in the report. The members will then take an interest in it. Speaking for myself, I do not think that I would go to the trouble of looking up the register to see what the manager had been doing for the last month.
The amendment before the Dáil has been with drawn. Unless the Deputy is objecting to that, I should like to know does he propose an amendment to the amendment?
Amendment No. 74 (b) and amendment No. 75 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 deal with the same matter and might be taken together.
Mr. Brennan
I move the following amendment:—
To delete sub-section (6).
Amendment No. 77 is to delete sub-section (7). In sub-sections (6) and (7) of this section, I understand an attempt is being made to put the manager in a position in which to my mind he should not be put. It is an effort to give him immunity from compliance with certain orders and regulations with which secretaries of county councils and other officials in ordinary circumstances have to comply. If the minutes of a county council are brought into court, the secretary must be brought in to prove that they are the minutes or to prove his own signature. I had an experience where a secretary was brought in in a case like that and it was very necessary that he should have been brought in because there were relevant questions put to him in the witness box which were absolutely essential in the case. The same thing could arise here. If we are going to pass these two sub-sections, the manager will be in the position that his signature will be received in evidence and should it be an order that is in question, it "shall until the contrary is proved be deemed to be an order duly made and signed by such county manager." I think that that is something that should not be granted to any person. I understand that an auditor or a Minister is entitled to such a privilege, but I am not prepared to grant it to a county manager. I think that a manager should be obliged to go into court and, if he is brought into court, to prove his own signature. For instance, you might have a situation in which a payment has been made before a particular date in order to make it valid and you would want to get the county manager into court to have him cross-examined on that point. I feel very strongly in regard to these two amendments. I put it to the House and to the Minister that they should be accepted and that these two sub-sections should be deleted.
Similar provisions are contained in every other Act in which you have to deal with executive authorities. You have a corresponding sub-section in Section 60 of the Local Government Act of 1930. It is usual to insert such a provision in Acts of this sort. If you do not, you would have the position that where an undefended civil bill were issued by the county manager, he would have to go into court to prove his signature. If his signature is disputed, or if the record is disputed, if it is contended that the signature is not his signature or that the record is not a correct record, then he has to go in.
Mr. Brennan
I am not going to accuse the Minister of deliberately misleading the House, but, until the contrary is proved, the fact that it is disputed is not sufficient at all.
Mr. Brennan
It might be disputed, and very rightly disputed. We had a similar situation in regard to the Pigs and Bacon Act recently, when an attempt was made to put the chairman of the Pigs and Bacon Board in the position in which the Minister now tries to put the manager, and the House agreed that such a provision should not be inserted. It is not sufficient to say that it is brought into dispute.
I strongly support Deputy Brennan. I think it is a wellknown fact that action of this character has brought strong remarks from the judiciary not only in this country, but in other countries. Judges have always insisted that they will not take any written evidence and that a man must appear. The Minister said that the signature may be disputed, but why put on the other party the extra expense by reason of a postponement of the case for the attendance of a county manager? Why could he not be there in the first instance? As the section reads, it is not a question of doubt with regard to the signature; it must be absolutely proved by the other party that it is not the signature. The words are very definite.
Mr. Brennan
How are you going to prove it in his absence?
If it was desired, he could be subpoenæd and made to attend, but what I am afraid of is that I do not know what sort of actions might arise in which the manager might be involved, but they might be such that the manager would be going from one end of a county to the other for the purpose of proving small matters, and it would put him in an impossible position.
Mr. Brennan
If the Minister visualises litigation of that sort as a result of the introduction of this Bill, I think we ought not to have the Bill, but I do not visualise any such thing at all.
Take the question of the recovery of rents. You will be bringing the manager all over a county to prove his signature and it is merely a matter of form.
Mr. Brennan
It is not a matter of form. It can become a very vital matter in a High Court action, as I have seen. If we allow these two sub-sections to remain, we will be obliged to prove that it is not his signature. How are we to prove that if we cannot get him into the witness box?
You can always subpoena him to attend.
Mr. Brennan
I am opposed to taking his signature in a case like that. Let him be produced like every other citizen of the State. You have very important people in business in the country who must go into court to prove their signatures and to undergo cross-examination. Why should there be immunity in this case?
I would not be opposed to this, except that I see that it will be absolutely impracticable. There is the matter of cottage rents all over a county, and proceedings have to be taken for their recovery. The manager is to be brought all over the place for the simple matter of proving his signature.
Mr. Brennan
What is the procedure at present with regard to the recovery of the cottage rents?
I thought that justice was distributed evenly, and that there was no differentiation as between big and small matters.
There is no differentiation.
The rent collector attends in that case.
If the manager makes an order for recovery, he will have to go into court and prove that it is his order.
Mr. Brennan
It is a different document altogether which is proved. This point, as I say, was raised in connection with the Pigs and Bacon Act.
Mr. Brennan
No, it is exactly the same thing—that it would be possibly necessary to bring the chairman of the board, the secretary or whoever is the official, to court and make him be subject to cross-examination. There are statutory obligations on the Minister with which he has to comply within certain dates. It may be necessary for certain things to be done within prescribed dates. How are you going to deal with such a case if there is a feeling, and possibly evidence, that they were not done within certain dates, unless he can be brought there?
Before the matter hardens to the point of a division. surely there is a well defined difference of opinion. Apparently the Minister sympathises with Deputy Brennan's point where it is necessary that the manager should be produced. The Minister's fears seem to be that the manager might be brought in to prove his signature in frivolous cases, where matters of rent are involved or where there is nothing to be done except to get judgment. Between those two points of view, surely something could be drafted to meet the situation. Surely a drafting amendment can be drawn up to provide that where it is genuinely believed that the manager's attendance is necessary, the manager will have to attend to prove his signature.
I support what Deputy Dockrell says, and while I agree with the Minister that there would be difficulty in rigidly forcing the manager to attend in every trivial case, it is easy to cite cases in which the manager's signature ought not to be accepted. It is very easy for a Deputy to bring to mind cases in which it would not be right that the mere signature of a man should be accepted. I think that something between the two extremes could be found.
Mr. Brennan
I do not think there are any extremes because the rent collectors and the rate collectors have their warrants, which are their authority, and the manager will not be called in at all. There is no chance of trivial matters been brought up.
Would it not be a very exceptional case in which the manager would have to be produced because, in any matter of ordinary litigation, in which the manager is involved, his signature and order would be accepted by the other side? It is only when there are grave doubts as to the bona fides of the signature that it would be questioned at all.
Perhaps the Minister could consider a provision whereby, in the case of a frivolous demand for the attendance of a manager, the cost of his attendance could be taken into account?
Mr. Brennan
The secretary of a county council has to attend and give evidence as to his signature, and it has not caused any inconvenience.
There is nothing to prevent a solicitor raising the question of the rent collector's authority, if he wanted to give trouble, and a manager would have to attend in that case.
Mr. Brennan
Would the Minister say how often in the experience of the Department anything like that has happened? When has anybody been brought in to prove his signature on trivial matters? This is a general immunity which you are giving the manager and which I hold no person is entitled to.
You have the same section in the Local Government Act of 1930.
Mr. Brennan
Who is immune under that Act?
Mr. Brennan
I do not want it extended to the country because I have seen cases in which it was absolutely essential for the secretary to be in attendance to prove his signature.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- Munnelly, John.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Kelly, James P.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George C.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Seán Brady; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment No. 77 not moved.
Question—"That Section 15 as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 78, on behalf of Deputy Norton:—
At the end of sub-section (2) to add the following proviso:—
Provided that every officer or servant of a local authority who feels aggrieved because of any decision made in regard to him by the county manager under this sub-section may, within the next 21 days, after such decision has been communicated to him, appeal to the chairman of such local authority against such decision and such chairman shall thereupon take such steps as he considers proper to hear and determine such appeal.
This amendment seeks to make some provision whereby, when an officer or servant of a local authority has a grievance, that grievance will be dealt with in the manner suggested in the amendment. As I mentioned on another occasion, the practice under the City Management Act is that the officer or servant has no appeal except to the Minister and that appeal must go through the city manager. I consider that very unjust. I also mentioned the case of a senior official employed by the Cork Corporation. He had a very definite grievance against the city manager and he had no redress except to send that grievance through the city manager, who was the accused on the occasion, to the Minister.
The suggestion of the Cork Corporation—and I think they included it in amendments that they sent to the Minister—was that a committee of the corporation would act as a kind of appeal board under the jurisdiction of the Minister. In that way the officer or servant would have a safeguard that, if he had a grievance, it would be justly dealt with. This amendment seeks to put that idea into effect and I think it is reasonable, because otherwise the officer or servant has no redress in regard to any grievance that may exist except through a channel that would be barred on account of the procedure laid down in the Bill.
I cannot accept this amendment. The manager is responsible for his staff and it is better to leave that responsibility on him and have no interference with it. There is an appeal to the Minister; if any officer feels aggrieved, he can appeal to the Minister.
Yes. That, I think, is a sufficient safeguard for anybody who has a grievance.
Will the Minister not accept any representations from a person aggrieved, except through the manager?
Any matter that is brought to the Minister's notice, he will have to consider it.
Is the Minister prepared to act on a representation from an officer or servant, even if it does not come through the manager?
Certainly. If any officer feels aggrieved, and if he so wishes, he can make an appeal direct to the Minister.
The reason I am anxious to press this amendment is that we have had experience of the working of the system as outlined in the Bill and it has not been found satisfactory. The manager has complete control over the staff. Every manager may not be an ideal employer. Managers are apt to have human faults and failings and it may be, and it has happened, that certain officers and servants under his control will have a grievance. Even though an officer or servant can go direct to the Minister, the procedure laid down is so roundabout, and the machinery is so complicated that it has not been invoked.
The suggestion in the amendment is a simple and a very reasonable one. It will certainly do justice to the persons who feel aggrieved. The city manager or the county manager, as the case may be, will afterwards have redress to the Minister and the Minister will have to sanction whatever decision is come to. In other words, the appeal, heard locally, will go in a more detailed manner into the facts of the case and will give more information to the Minister on which to form a judgment than would be the case under the procedure suggested in the Bill. I appeal to the Minister, even if the amendment is unacceptable, to consider the principle underlying it as he may formulate some other method of dealing with grievances and complaints locally rather than by taking them to Dublin.
You are leaving it to the chairman to determine the appeal. That is taking the control of the staff out of the hands of the manager and the Minister as well.
I am not tied to the wording of the amendment.
I am sure you could not be, as it stands.
Will the suggestion of mine be considered with regard to dealing with grievances locally?
No, it could not; that is taking control of the staff out of the manager's hands.
The manager is getting too much control.
Question put: "That the proviso be there added."
Division challenged.
Will the Deputies claiming a division please rise.
Deputies Corish, T.J. Murphy and Hurley rose.
The Deputies claiming the division will be recorded as dissenting.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 11, to add at the end of the section two new sub-sections as follows:—
(5) The Minister may by order, whenever he so thinks proper, revoke a nomination made by him under either of the two next preceding sub-sections of this section or under this sub-section and make a new nomination in lieu of the nomination so revoked.
(6) Sub-article (3) of Article 18 of the Schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, is hereby repealed.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
I move amendment No. 80:—
Before Section 18, page 11, to insert a section as follows:—
(1) Every county manager shall, in each local financial year, cause to be prepared at the prescribed time an estimate (in this Act referred to as an estimate of expenses) showing the amounts which, in his opinion, will be necessary to meet the expenses and provide for the requirements of the council of his county during the local financial year then ensuing.
(2) Every estimate of expenses prepared in pursuance of this section shall be considered by the council of the county to which such estimate relates at a meeting (in this Act referred to as an estimates meeting) of such council at which the county manager for such county shall be present and which shall be held at the prescribed time (whether prescribed generally for all councils of counties or for the said council in particular and whether so prescribed generally for all years or in particular for the relevant year only) and of which not less than 21 days' notice shall have been given to every person who is a member of the said council when such notice is given.
(3) Not less than 21 days before the day on which an estimates meeting of the council of a county is to be held, the county manager for such county shall—
(a) deposit in the offices of such council a copy of the estimate of expenses which is to be considered by such council at such estimates meeting, and
(b) send a copy of the said estimate of expenses to every person who is, on the day before the commencement of the said 21 days, a member of such council, and
(c) give public notice in the prescribed manner of the fact that such estimate of expenses had been made and that a copy thereof had been deposited as aforesaid.
(4) Every copy of an estimate of expenses which is deposited in pursuance of this section in the offices of the council of a county may be inspected free of charge by any member of the public at any time at which such officers are open for the transaction of official business, and the county manager shall supply to every person making application to him therefor a copy of such estimate of expenses at the price of 1/- per copy.
These amendments—Nos. 80, 81, and 82—are taken from the Act passed last year.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 81:—
Before Section 18 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Every manager for an elective body shall, in each local financial year, cause to be prepared at the prescribed time an estimate (in this Act referred to as an estimate of expenses) showing the amounts which, in his opinion, will be necessary to meet the expenses and provide for the requirements of such elective body during the local financial year then next ensuing.
(2) Every estimate of expenses prepared in pursuance of this section shall be considered by the elective body to which it relates at a meeting (in this Act referred to as an estimates meeting) of such elective body at which the manager for such elective body shall be present and which shall be held at the prescribed time (whether prescribed generally for all elective bodies or for the class of elective bodies to which the said elective body belongs or for the said elective body in particular and whether so prescribed generally for all years or in particular for the relevant year only) and of which not less than 21 days' notice shall have been given to every person who is a member of the said elective body when such notice is given.
(3) Not less than 21 days before the day on which an estimates meeting of an elective body is to be held, the manager for such elective body shall—
(a) deposit in the office of such elective body a copy of the estimate of expenses which is to be considered by such elective body at such estimates meeting, and
(b) send a copy of the said estimate of expenses to every person who is, on the day before the commencement of the said 21 days, a member of such elective body, and
(c) give public notice in the prescribed manner of the fact that such estimate of expenses had been made and that a copy thereof had been deposited as aforesaid.
(4) Every copy of an estimate of expenses which is deposited in pursuance of this section in the offices of an elective body may be inspected free of charge by any member of the public at any time at which such offices are open for the transaction of official business, and the manager for such elective body shall supply to every person making application therefor a copy of such estimate of expenses at the price of 1/- per copy.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 82:
Before Section 18 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) At an estimates meeting of the council of a county or an elective body or at an adjournment of such meeting, such council or elective body (as the case may be)—
(a) may (subject to the subsequent provisions of this section) by resolution amend, whether by addition, omission, or variation, the estimate of expenses required by this Act to be considered at such meeting, and
(b) shall by resolution adopt such estimate of expenses either (as the case may require) without amendment or with the amendments made therein under the foregoing paragraph of this sub-section, and
(c) shall by resolution determine, in accordance with such estimate of expenses as so adopted, the rates in the pound to be levied for the several purposes specified in such estimate or, in the case of an elective body which is not a rating authority, prepare and by resolution adopt, in accordance with such estimate of expenses as so adopted, the demand or other instrument whereby the money to meet the expenses of such elective body in the local financial year then next ensuing is to be obtained.
(2) Whenever at an estimates meeting of the council of a county or of an elective body, an amendment of the estimate of expenses required by this Act to be considered at such meeting is proposed and the county manager for such county or the manager for such elective body (as the case may be) is of opinion that such amendment, if made, would seriously prejudice the efficient or the economical performance of the duties of such council or elective body, the said county manager or manager (as the case may be) shall at such meeting state his objection to such amendment and his reasons therefor, and thereupon such council or elective body shall consider such objection and either shall decide at such meeting not to make such amendment or shall adjourn, in accordance with the next following sub-section of this section, the further consideration of such amendment.
(3) When the further consideration of an amendment of an estimate of expenses is adjourned under the next preceding sub-section of this section the estimates meeting shall, after all business which can lawfully and conveniently be transacted there at without adjournment is disposed of, be adjourned for not less than fourteen days and at such adjourned meeting the amendment or amendments which occasioned the adjournment (with or without any modification thereof) but no other amendment of the said estimate of expenses shall be considered and decided upon and the business of the estimates meeting shall be completed.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 83:—
Before Section 18 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The council of a county or an elective body may, at any time after they have adopted under this Act an estimate of expenses, consent by resolution to the expenditure of money or the incurring of a liability in respect of the exercise or performance, during the local financial year to which such estimate of expenses relates, of any particular power, function, or duty of such council or elective body (as the case may be) mentioned in such estimate of expenses in excess of the expenditure specified in such estimate in respect of such particular power, function, or duty.
(2) Save with a consent given by resolution under the foregoing sub-section of this section, the total amount of money expended and liability incurred by the council of a county or by an elective body in any local financial year in respect of the exercise or performance in that year of a power, function, or duty of such council or elective body which is mentioned in the estimate of expenses adopted by such council or elective body for the said year shall not exceed the amount specified in the said estimate of expenses in respect of that power, function, or duty.
I do not think anyone will oppose this because it gives the council control over expenditure.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 84:—
Before sub-section (5) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) When a resolution of which notice has been given under this section has been proposed at the meeting of the county council or elective body concerned summoned for the purpose under this section, such council or body and the county manager concerned shall consider such resolution and the number of members voting for such resolution exceeds either half the total membership of such council or body or two-thirds of the members present and voting, such county manager shall, if and when the resolution directs the county manager to insert in the estimates for the financial year next following such works, make provision for such works and/or such expenditure as the council of the county or the council of an elective body sets out in such resolution.
I wonder if the Minister is satisfied in a case where a council makes a request to the manager to do a certain work, whether he can refuse to do it, or omit to provide for it in the estimate.
If the council provides the money he must do the work.
Mr. Brennan
He draws up the estimate and we provide the money. Suppose he refuses to include the work in the estimate?
If the council provides the money for any particular work he has got to do it. If the Deputy will leave this over until the Report Stage, I will look into it.
Does the Minister's statement apply to the existing managerial bodies? A point like that did arise in the case of the Dublin Corporation, and the legal opinion obtained was contrary to that just given expression to by the Minister.
I am afraid it does not apply to the existing bodies.
Would the Minister consider the advisability of inserting a provision of that kind in the case of the Dublin Corporation?
I will, because I would prefer uniformity in the case of all these bodies.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
(3) Whenever a county manager attends a meeting of the council of a county or of an elective body or of a committee in pursuance of the next preceding sub-section of this section, he shall give to such council, body, or committee (as the case may be) such advice and assistance as shall reasonably be required of him by such council, body or committee, and shall for that purpose arrange for the attendance at such meeting of such of the officers of such council or body as may be necessary having regard to the business to be transacted at such meeting.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 85:—
In sub-section (3), line 43, after the word "assistance" to insert the words "and give such information".
We think this amendment is unnecessary because, under Section 19, the information must be furnished by the manager.
Mr. Brennan
I think it should be in this section too, and that it would be relevant to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 22 and 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
(1) Immediately upon the commencement of this Act all the powers, functions and duties of every council of a borough shall become and be transferred by virtue of this section to the corporation of such borough and shall thenceforward be powers, functions and duties of such corporation.
(2) All real and personal property (including choses-in-action) which is, immediately before the commencement of this Act, vested in the council of a borough shall, by virtue of this section and without more, become and be transferred to and vested in the corporation of such borough immediately upon such commencement.
I move amendment No. 86:—
Before Section 24, page 14, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) In every action or other legal proceeding, whether civil or criminal, instituted in any court of law or equity by or against the council of a county, the county manager for that county shall act for and on behalf of such council and may do all such acts, matters, and things as he may consider necessary for the preparation and prosecution or defence of such action or other proceeding in the same manner in all respects as if (as the case may require) he were the plaintiff or prosecutor or the defendant therein, and, where such action or other proceeding relates to the exercise or performance by such council of a reserved function of such council, such county manager shall, in the doing of any such act, matter, or thing as aforesaid, act with the express authority of such council, and such authority shall be deemed to have been given unless or until the contrary is shown.
(2) In every action or other legal proceeding, whether civil or criminal instituted in any court of law or equity by or against an elective body, the manager for such elective body shall act for and on behalf of such elective body and may do all such acts, matters, and things as he may consider necessary for the preparation and prosecution or defence of such action or other proceeding in the same manner in all respects as if (as the case may require) he were the plaintiff or the prosecutor or the defendant therein, and, where such action or other proceeding relates to the exercise or performance by such elective body of a reserved function of such elective body, such manager shall, in the doing of any such act, matter, or thing as aforesaid, act with the express authority of such elective body, and such authority shall be deemed to have been given unless or until the contrary is shown.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 87:—
In sub-section (1), page 14, line 4, and also in sub-section (2), line 10, after the word "borough" to insert in brackets the words "(other than the Borough of Dun Laoghaire)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 88:—
Before sub-section (3), page 14, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) The law in force at the passing of this Act in relation to councils of boroughs or the council of any particular borough shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with this Act, apply to corporations of boroughs or the corporation of such particular borough (as the case may be), and for that purpose every corporation of a borough shall be deemed to be the council of such borough.
There are many general and local Acts in force in particular boroughs and towns and these amendments are intended to preserve them and continue them in force.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 89:—
In sub-section (4), paragraph (c), page 14, line 26, after the word "shall" to insert in brackets the words "(except in the case of the Borough of Dun Laoghaire)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
(b) such council shall from time to time appoint a committee to be known and in this section referred to as the visiting committee of such mental hospital;
(4) The visiting committee of a district mental hospital shall not inquire into or receive any complaint or make any report in relation to the services, remuneration, privileges, superannuation, or compensation for loss of office of the officers and servants of such hospital or any of such officers or servants.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 90:—
In page 14, lines 50, 51, 54, 56, and in page 15, lines 6, 8, 11, 33, 38 and 42, in sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (5), (6) and (7), to delete the word "visiting" where it occurs in those lines.
I regard this and the following amendments as very important. This section deals with mental hospitals, and it appears that mental hospital committees as we know them are going to be abolished and there will then be what will be known as a visiting committee. There is a joint hospital in Ballinasloe for Galway and Roscommon. The committee consists of certain members appointed by the county councils. According to the Bill these members will continue to be members of the visiting committee. Nobody expects that they are going to continue to act as a visiting committee. There will be no need for their attendance. They would have to come very long distances, over 50 miles, in some cases, to go to the hospitals, and the only thing they can do there is to consult the patients. Patients of mental hospitals are lunatics, and the only thing members of the visiting committee would have to do would be to discuss matters with these patients and hear complaints. They have no authority to discuss matters with the officials and to report back to their councils any complaints they may have to make. They are debarred from doing that. Of course they can bring back reports of what the patients said, but they cannot report what sane people might say. As a result there will not be any attendance by members of the visiting committee, if the section passes in its present form. The manager will be without any advice or supervision.
In this amendment I am attempting to have the words "visiting committee" deleted and to let the present committees remain. In a further amendment I want to provide that the members of the committee will meet at least quarterly. At present they receive certain travelling expenses but, as members of the visiting committee, they will not get these expenses. Consequently they are not going to attend. In any case they would not go to consult lunatics and nobody else. It is very important, when framing estimates for these hospitals, to see that members of the committee are in attendance and in possession of all the facts in relation to their administration. I am definitely opposed to having managers running hospitals without assistance or advice. The expenditure on these hospitals is unfortunately very heavy, particularly where they are joint hospitals, and I believe it will be impossible to carry on as now proposed. Where there is a concentration of population in one county or in a city it might be possible to run such an institution and certain people might attend as a visiting committee, but where there is a joint hospital covering a wide area that will not be the case. I am not asking the Minister to accept my amendment, but I suggest that some amendment should be brought in to allow committees to function as usual.
There is a good deal to be said for the views expressed by Deputy Brennan on this matter. As he indicated, the visiting committee would serve no useful purpose. The payment of travelling expenses to members is an important question. Apart from the case of joint hospitals, such as Ballinasloe, management committees have hitherto been drawn from wide areas. I should like to know if the visiting committees under the Bill will be paid their expenses, and if there is a certain period laid down within which they must visit the hospitals. There is much to be said for the maintenance of the present committees. The expenditure amounts to a huge sum and as the estimates are submitted in great detail they take up a good deal of the members' time. Of course the Minister can say that that is the manager's job now. According to the Bill, when the general estimates are submitted, it will be the duty of the county councils to examine them. How can they do that with any degree of certainty unless they have access to the accounts and are conversant with the general working of mental hospitals? The expenditure on mental hospitals goes into great detail and the Minister would be well advised to have something akin to the present arrangement for the examination of the estimates. In recent years the greatest increase in rates has arisen in institutions of this kind.
It is useless to suggest that county councils can examine estimates submitted by a manager in connection with the affairs of a whole county unless they can go into the estimates in the proper way. There is a good deal to be said for the point of view put forward by Deputy Brennan, and if the Minister cannot give way on the point to-day, I suggest that it is of sufficient importance to be taken into consideration between now and the Report Stage and examined in greater detail. There seems to be no consideration at all for the ratepayers concerned. A huge amount of money has to be spent on these hospitals, and there are grievances connected with them that from time to time have to be examined. Anybody who has been a member of a mental hospital committee knows that an amount of time is taken up dealing with complaints of patients and officers. A visiting committee will not be able to go into such matters. The whole proposal is an absolute farce, and something should be done to enable a proper committee to be set up to examine estimates in detail. The ratepayers are not fools.
Would the Minister consider giving county councils power to examine the estimates and to query items?
I do not know whether they have or not. Since I had anything to do with local administration I always thought that it was a great weakness to give any statutory body power to spend without having the obligation of raising the money. I do not care how representative that body may be, it does not feel that it has the same responsibility unless it is directly concerned with the raising of the money as well as spending it. When county councils get estimates from boards of health, committees of agriculture, vocational education committees and mental hospitals the position seems to be "take them or leave them." Queries can be raised, but estimates cannot be altered materially. It is easy for a body that has not the responsibility of raising the money to be free about spending it. I agree with the amendment, but there might be a better way to deal with the matter. A lot of things arise in connection with mental hospitals. There are complaints by the patients and by the staff, and it would be well to give the human touch to it by allowing the committee to meet as of old. The manager would find it of great assistance to him, and I think it would be well worth the Minister's while considering that. You are not taking away any of the powers of the manager.
As regards the supervision of expenditure and consideration of the estimates, the county council, I take it, under the Bill will have the power of passing the estimates and raising the money. For that to be effective, I think they should have power to examine and veto, to a greater extent than they have at present, the estimates of the mental hospital. After all, the power of the county council over county expenditure at present is very small. With the exception of road works, I do not think they have any control. It is the subsidiary bodies, even though they are composed of members of the county council and persons nominated by the county council, who are responsible for the expenditure. The county council have the responsibility of raising the money, but it is in the case of these bodies that the expenditure is soaring.
I would support the amendment as far as it goes, but I think the Minister should consider something more and give power to the estimates committee of the county council to query seriously the estimates of the subsidiary bodies. I have always thought it a weakness that county councils and borough councils—and I am speaking for the Dublin Corporation and the Dublin County Council—when they get an estimate can only take it or leave it. We have representatives there, but I do not think a representative on these bodies feels the same responsibility as he does on the county council to which he is directly elected. The increase in expenditure is largely due to these bodies over which we have no effective control. The Minister should consider how better control could be given over those bodies and, at the same time, retain this committee. He can call it a visiting committee. We call the committees which deal with Portrane and Grangegorman visiting committees, and we call the joint body the joint committee. These visiting committees should meet and hear complaints, even though they have no more authority than to make a recommendation to the manager.
I hope the Minister will not take very serious note of the point raised by Deputy Belton, because the take-it-or-leave-it power which he alleges the county councils only have with regard to the expenditure of the subsidiary bodies is a misrepresentation, perhaps an unwitting misrepresentation, because the members of the subsidiary bodies are practically in every case members of the parent body and for that reason have a very intimate knowledge of and competent control over the expenditure. Therefore I do not think any further safeguards are necessary.
My difficulty is that the whole thing seems to be contradictory, because in sub-section (c) of this section it is provided that certain members of the visiting committee may not be members of the county council at all. We are asked in one case to give power in regard to expenditure to this body, many of whom may not be members of the county council.
That is a matter for the council.
Still it leaves you in a very awkward position to determine this amendment at all. Another thing is that in regard to the functions of the county manager you must remember that the conditions in one county may be different from those in another. For instance, the head office in which the manager will spend most of his time may be 30 or 40 miles away from the mental hospital, and he and his staff may have to travel that distance to hold a meeting there. That is my difficulty in looking at the matter purely from a business point of view. You cannot have it every way. As regards the expenditure of the mental hospital committee, I think all their decisions have been subject to the ratification of the parent body. They had certain wide powers up to a point, but they had to bear in mind the fact that the county council, of which they were members, could exercise a veto any time they chose to do so.
I think we have got a bit away from the amendment. The existing committees that consider the estimates for the mental hospitals will no longer function. I want to deal with Deputy Brennan's amendment. He wants to give the committees more power than merely to hear complaints from patients. The amendment does not go so far as to say that they should have anything to do with bringing forward estimates for the mental hospitals. That will arise on the section later, and to argue the two things now would be confusing the matter. I think Deputy Brennan made a very fair case for his amendment, and that it would be ridiculous to ask a committee, some of whom may have to travel 50 or 100 miles, to visit a mental hospital without having any other power than to interview patients who, as Deputy Brennan said, are insane, so that probably no useful purpose would be served in interviewing them. I think the Deputy made a pretty fair case for his amendment.
Of course, the mental hospital committees are going because the boards of health are going. In some cases we have a joint body, and the committee will continue in those cases, with, of course, all the executive functions transferred to the manager. When we talk about giving committees more power, we must remember that, except for the executive functions, the powers go back to the county council. Deputy Coburn mentioned that it might be unwise, perhaps, to have representatives who are not members of the county council. But that is the position to-day. There are people nominated by the county councils to these bodies who are not members of the county council. One of the reserved functions of the county council, as provided for in Schedule II, is:—
8. The making under Section 9 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, of regulations in respect of the admission, detention, or discharge of patients to, in, or from a mental hospital or in respect of the conditions as to payment or accommodation under which private patients may be admitted to or detained in a mental hospital.
I was asked for some example as to what sort of committees would have to be set up. It occurred to me that that would be the sort of committee that should be set up under that Section 15 and that the council could do that. So far as powers outside the executive powers are concerned they go back to the county council. Consider what the executive powers are. There is control of the staff and, in control of the staff, is involved the hearing of complaints and there is the question of the dietary scale and so forth. These are purely executive functions and must be dealt with by the manager. Deputy Belton is under some misapprehension about the estimates. Deputy Belton or anybody else serving on a local authority is entitled to ask for particulars of estimates and to examine them in detail. The manager cannot prevent his doing that. He is entitled to examine the estimates in detail and make inquiries about them.
Will the county council have power to examine the estimate for the mental hospital in detail when it comes before it?
The county council will now be the authority.
Will it have any more authority as regards going into the details of estimates than it had heretofore?
I do not think that it had much authority heretofore.
It could have exercised authority.
In the future, the county council will have no direct contact with the mental hospitals except through the R.M.S. There will be a visiting committee but it will have no functions. The manager will not have time to go into detail in connection with the work of the county council and the mental hospital and the estimate of the R.M.S. will be accepted by the manager.
Mr. Brennan
We are severely handicapped by not having before us all the necessary machinery. I said that before when dealing with the Public Assistance Bill. The Minister has drawn an analogy between the board of health and the mental hospital committee, but in the Public Assistance Bill we made provision for committees of various kinds to assist the manager. What I am endeavouring to do is to try to retain contact between the committee and the manager of the mental hospital. In the administration of the hospital there is no contact. If the Minister thinks it would not be of assistance to the manager to have a committee which would sit down with him and help him with his estimate in respect of the hospital, I do not agree. I think that the manager would welcome that assistance. Under the Bill, you are going to have a complete cut-off from the mental hospitals. In the county you will have committees of various kinds, and you may have in the immediate vicinity of a mental hospital charitably disposed people who will visit it, but you will not have people who will act as a committee.
A committee can be set up under Section 15.
Mr. Brennan
Who is going to attend from an area of that sort at the mental hospital?
Nobody except one qualified to be an inmate.
Mr. Brennan
Their functions are to visit, from time to time, and hear any complaints made to them by any inmate of the hospital. They are to report to the county council any abuses observed or found. The only contacts they have are with the inmates. They are to report to the council on any repairs which may appear to be urgently needed. Is not that a matter that should be reported to the manager of the mental hospital, and should they not discuss it with him? If there are repairs to be done, it will be the duty of the manager to include them in the estimate, and that is the time he ought to have the advice of the committee. Unless something is done, you will have a complete cut-off between the council and the mental hospitals. In my council, when the estimate of the county hospital comes up, we have always a representative on the committee to stand up and explain the estimate to the council. Now we are to be deprived of that assistance. The Minister would be well advised to retain the hospital committee for certain purposes which should be set out.
The committee visualised by Deputy Brennan must have control over the estimate of the mental hospital or the power of the estimates committee of the county council or corporation must be extended. When we get the mental hospital estimate, we must accept or reject it. Our control of it is through our representatives on that committee. We have no other control. If that representative control is withdrawn, we shall have no power over the estimate, and there will be no link with the mental hospital when the county council or the corporation gets the estimate. At present, the council have no power over the estimate—I should like to be contradicted on this, if possible—but exercise control through their representatives. I have been contradicted by Deputy Hannigan, who never sat on a county council and who has no experience of estimates in the case of county councils with complete executive authority.
I have parallel experience.
You have managerial experience in Dublin. I am speaking of county council experience, where they have full executive authority. We have been told that we cannot go into details of the estimate but can refer it back.
What have the powers of existing county councils to do with this amendment?
I do not think that, in the altered circumstances, there will be any supervision over this expenditure by the county council unless the county council is given increased powers so that they can have detailed examination of the estimate. To make control effective, the Minister should either accept Deputy Brennan's amendment or give larger powers to the estimates committee. I move to report progress.
Progress reported. Committee to sit again on Tuesday, 19th March.
The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until Tuesday, 19th March, 1940, at 3 p.m.
