Local Government (Dublin) (Temporary) Bill, 1948—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Murphy)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. As members of the House will remember, this Bill arises out of the decision to hold the local elections in the County of Dublin this year. When the Bill dealing with local elections was recently under consideration, I indicated that it might be necessary to make certain temporary provisions so as allow for the uninterrupted reorganisation of certain services that are at present being carried out under the Dublin Board of Assistance. This Bill, therefore, is the result of discussions which have taken place between the Minister for Health and myself. It is purely a temporary measure, designed to last for so long, and only for so long, as is necessary to have this reorganisation carried out.

Deputies will observe that the period mentioned in the Bill is a period of, roughly, six months. I hope it will be possible to have the reorganisation work carried out within that time. If it is not, there is a provision for the extension of that time, but proposals in respect of that extension will have to be notified to the House and the Order may be the subject of discussion and annulment by the House within the period and in the manner already prescribed for dealing with Orders of that kind.

It is hardly my function to give the House any details of the work of reorganisation that is being carried out in the institution which is the centre of the Dublin Board of Assistance; that would be more properly a matter for the Minister for Health, but the House, I think, should be informed that this reorganisation is of a very far-reaching character and aims at making St. Kevin's a very important centre in the health services of Dublin and an institution that will ultimately confer very lasting benefits on the poor of the city. Beyond that I do not think it is necessary for me to enter in regard to details.

The House is thus in a position to know the reason for the introduction of this Bill. Deputies already have had an intimation on the Local Elections Bill that a measure of this kind would be necessary. Section 5, as Deputies will observe, restricts the appointment of permanent assistant managers in Dublin while the arrangement in this Bill lasts and I think Deputies will also understand the reason for that. Proposals are under consideration, and the headings of the Bill will shortly, I hope, be ready, in which the whole future of local Government and the relation of county managers to local government will be revised. In the circumstances I think it would be unwise to permit of any additions to that number, except to the number of officials who are designated county managers or assistant county managers. This Bill, therefore, just provides for the temporary arrangement that is in operation at the moment.

Deputies will also be aware of the fact that the official who is in charge of this reorganisation is not an official of a local authority but of the Local Government Department and that he is subject to recall to that Department at any time that may be considered necessary. I feel it is necessary to put forward this Bill for the reasons given and I feel sure it will be accepted by the House in that spirit.

Mr. MacEntee

Part II of this Bill would seem to indicate that the Minister has some of the characteristics which distinguished a well-known figure in nursery history, known as the Duke of York. When the Local Elections Bill was before the House I understood that a demand was made that the existing position under which the affairs of the Dublin Board of Assistance are to be administered by a commissioner should be terminated and that the old position, in which the affairs of that organisation were administered by an elected body, should be reverted to. Part II would seem to indicate that the more the position changes in relation to the affairs of St. Kevin's institution and the board of assistance, the more it remains the same; that, in fact, despite all the Minister has said about the evils of the managerial system, we are going to have it continued, and, I think, wisely continued in relation to the administration of St. Kevin's institution. Of course, the hated term manager will not be applied to the officer who is appointed to exercise and perform the executive functions of the board.

I merely say that by way of reminding the House that inconstancy would seem to be a feature of many politicians, and not least of those who recently made the journey from the benches on this side of the House to the benches on the other side. I was under the impression that whatever else the Minister might hate, abhor and find repellent, there was nothing he hated or found more repulsive than the managerial system. I am glad to see he has shown wisdom in this matter. Here the Minister is taking power to continue the managerial system under another name. I am glad he is doing it because I think it is essential, in the interests of the institution and not least in the interests of the inmates, that the former chaotic condition—the chaotic administration, if one can apply that term to the situation which existed in the institutions under the Dublin Board of Assistance before the appointment of a commissioner— should be reverted to. There is nothing more essential for the proper administration of that institution than that there should be one man in whom would be vested the executive functions and that that man should be responsible to some other person, either to the Minister, as he has been heretofore, or to the elected body which constitutes the board of assistance.

I am afraid, however, having regard to the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Bill that the situation may not be quite as satisfactory as it has been heretofore, because the provisions of the section would seem to indicate that the Minister hopes to administer this institution which, I think, houses almost 6,000 or 7,000 people, either as inmates, officers or patients, under the form of a diarchy which will have on the one hand an elected body whose functions are to be exercised and performed as sub-section (2) sets out and then a chief executive officer who is to hold office at the will and wish of the Minister. It looks to me as if the Minister is trying to have it both ways. If the board want to instruct the chief executive officer to do certain things, the Minister, if these instructions do not meet with his approval, may indicate to the chief executive officer that if he carries out the instructions of the board, he will be constrained to remove him from office and appoint another person in his stead. That is quite inconsistent with the position which exists under the Managerial Acts in relation to the county manager, because despite all the defects which we have heard— wrongly in my view—ascribed to the leading provisions of that Act, the county managers are not appointed by the Minister of the day, whomever he may be. They cannot be recalled by the Minister whomever he may be, and they are bound by the terms of the Act to carry out all the legitimate instructions of the local authority provided that these instructions are, as I have said, legitimate and intra vires the powers of the local authorities and provided that the local authorities raise the necessary revenue through the rates to enable the managers to carry out these instructions.

If a county manager, or indeed a manager not only of a county but of any local authority, refuses to carry out these instructions, the local authority can, by resolution, carried with the necessary majority and after due notice has been given, suspend the manager. There would appear to be no such power of suspension vested in the elected body which is to take over nominally the control of the Dublin Board of Assistance after the elections. Neither would there appear to be any power vested in the Dublin Board of Assistance to instruct its chief executive officer nor to suspend him should they find him unsatisfactory in any way. I should like to say in that connection, however, that I may be misinterpreting the terms of the Bill——

Mr. S. Collins

Deliberately misinterpreting them.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know what the lawyers would say if this point were put to them but I do say that the chief executive officer would seem to stand in much closer relationship to the Minister than any county manager does. I am not prepared to say that is, in the existing situation of the institutions managed by the Dublin Board of Assistance, undesirable nor am I prepared to say that it is unnecessary. As the Minister has told you, a very farreaching scheme of reform is being worked out in relation to these institutions of the Dublin Board of Assistance. In the course of the years during which the affairs of that board have been administered by a commissioner—latterly by a single commissioner and formerly by a board of three commissioners—drastic and radical changes have been made in that institution. We have built up St. Kevin's Hospital until now it is one of the best-equipped and best-staffed hospitals in the City of Dublin. Changes have been made in the chronic portion of the house. Changes also have been made in the other institutions managed by the Dublin Board of Assistance. A completely new hospital reserved for the treatment of children's diseases on modern lines has been established.

In addition to that—I know this because the matter was completed during my term of office and during the term of office of my colleague, the Minister for Health—a site has been purchased on the outskirts of the city on which a modern home for aged and infirm people who could not otherwise look after and support themselves was to be started. These things in my view could be much more expeditiously carried out by a small board or by a commissioner acting on behalf of the board.

The changes which have been made in the administration of St. Kevin's Institution in James's Street have naturally been slow, because a great many long-established abuses were found to exist there. To take one case in point, when we abolished the board of assistance we found that most of the wardsmen, the people who were attending on the inmates and upon the patients in the acute hospital were themselves inmates of the institution and in receipt, as such, of public assistance. The commissioner abolished that system. We found also that the staff of nurses there had been recruited certainly in a way which gave the greatest possible scope for private patronage. These things have been dispensed with and instead a staff of nurses now is recruited in a manner which ensures that only competent and thoroughly reliable people will be employed.

In addition, there was a very great and very difficult problem of discipline to be dealt with. Naturally, owing to the way in which it had been managed in the past, the institution got into such a condition that most undesirable practices were taking place.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How does this arise on this measure?

Mr. MacEntee

It arises on the ground that I think the Minister is wise in providing for the appointment of a chief executive officer.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not necessary to go back over the whole history of the institution.

Mr. S. Collins

It will look well in the Irish Press in the morning.

Mr. MacEntee

I may tell the Deputy it does not have to appear in the Irish Press. The people who were inmates of that institution when we took up office and the people who are inmates to-day know the difference. I want to say this, that the position had become such that the grounds of that institution were regarded as a place of public resort by all the gamblers of the neighbourhood.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see the relevance of the Deputy's remarks. There is no necessity to go back over the history of the institution.

Mr. MacEntee

This Bill is to provide for the exercise of executive functions of the Dublin Board of Assistance and for restrictions on permanent appointments to certain offices. I am showing why a continuation of some element of administration by a commissioner is essential and desirable and I am endeavouring to show that by adducing instances from the past history of the institution.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no necessity to go back. What is in the Bill is under discussion.

Mr. MacEntee

I am dealing with what should be in the Bill. There should be in the Bill such specific provisions as would prevent the abuses which developed during the past history of the institution from recurring. These abuses were the use of pauper labour, the widespread indiscipline which existed in the institution, the mismanagement of stores, the failure to keep proper records, the fact that for years people were living in that institution who were not entitled under the public assistance code to be in it. All these things are on record; they are down in black and white and can be referred to by any Deputy who is concerned to realise why I very strongly support the provisions of subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 4 of the Bill.

Mr. P.S. Doyle

I have great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill, first, because it restores the elected representatives to the board which is a very important one among the hospitals in Dublin. I am very glad, Sir, that you did not permit Deputy MacEntee to proceed on the lines of going back over the history of the institution as it does not arise on this Bill. I would like to put one point to him. When the three commissioners were appointed everything was not in line, as he has endeavoured to say, when two commissioners resigned and were not replaced.

Mr. MacEntee

One of the commissioners resigned because he had got a better appointment and the other resigned after years of service.

Mr. P.S. Doyle

Under the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act of 1926, provision was made for the appointment of chief executive officers and may I ask the Minister what is the relation between the board of assistance and the chief executive officer that will be appointed under this Bill? Will it be the same as the relation between a city or county manager and his local authority? Also, will the board have any further power other than the reserved functions of local authorities? I hope that the Minister will give his opinion on these two points.

Captain Cowan

There are, to my mind, quite a number of objectionable features regarding this Bill. There is no doubt at all that when we were discussing the Local Government Bill from time to time, we were of opinion, on this side of the House anyway, that the end of the county management system was in reasonable sight. I think that the county management system is obnoxious. I felt that for quite a considerable time. I believe that it is interfering with the rights of the elected representatives of the people on local authorities. From the declarations which were made by members of the Government regarding it, it was my belief that by now we would be considering the legislation—not very difficult legislation—that would be necessary to modify that county management system and to bring it into accord with our conception of democracy. When we, by legislative Acts here, provided for the reconstitution of the Dublin Board of Assistance, I think we all felt at that time that by the time the election had taken place and the board had been reconstituted those objectionable features of the County Management Act would have been removed. This Bill, then, comes as something of a shock because it proposes to carry on the county management system in the Dublin Board of Assistance under another name. Whether you call him a "county manager" or a "chief executive officer" it is all the same to me.

I do not mind what you call him. It is the system I object to and there is no doubt whatsoever that this Bill carries on, the county management system by calling the manager a "chief executive officer." That is the first ground of objection I have to the Bill in that it is disappointing, but the elections will not take place for some months yet and I think the Minister ought to withdraw this Bill and that when the Dáil reassembles after the Recess he should introduce legislation to modify or amend the County Management Act.

This Bill is entitled a temporary Bill, a Bill to make temporary provisions, and it contains in Section 3 of Part I power for the Minister—with, I think, the consent of the Minister for Health—to extend it from time to time; from time to time he can continue this Bill in force. On a previous occasion in this House I referred to a temporary Bill passed in the year 1923. It was passed to deal with an urgent situation and it has been continued by Parliament from year to year from 1923 right up to 1948, a period of 25 years.

That Bill had to come before the House to be extended, but under the powers we give the Minister here in Section 3 this Bill could be carried on indefinitely and it would be necessary that some Deputy or some Senator should bring in a resolution annulling the Order before the extension could be considered by either House. That section is obnoxious in a temporary Bill. If it is a temporary Bill for six months, let it be a temporary Bill, and if the Minister wants to continue it after that period let the Minister come to this House and get that authority.

I gather from the peculiar wording of Section 4 (2) that there is already a person vested by statute with the powers of a manager, and I think this method of replacement is not a good method. It simply says:—

"The executive functions of the board shall be exercised and performed by the chief executive officer, and the person by whom those functions would, but for this sub-section, have been exercised and performed shall not exercise or perform those functions."

Apparently, without this Bill at all, there is a person with authority to exercise managerial functions at the moment. The section so reads to me anyway. What this Bill proposes is to take a person who is now a commissioner, or who will be a commissioner on the day immediately preceding the passing of Part II of the Act, and vest him with executive functions and thereby deprive a person who, by statute—the Act of 1941, I presume— has the managerial powers.

There is a lot to be said for Deputy MacEntee's criticism of Section 4 (5). If the chief executive officer or manager, because that is what he is, shall hold office during the pleasure of the Minister, if he can be removed by the will or on the instructions of the Minister, if he can be paid what the Minister directs, he becomes completely, or may become completely, a tool of the Minister's. That was one of the main objections to the County Management Acts. But, under those Acts, those managers were not appointed by the Minister and they did not entirely hold their office during the pleasure of the Minister.

Mr. MacEntee

They did not hold it at all.

Captain Cowan

I am not prepared to go so far as that, because I have not studied the particular section. I am protecting myself by saying that they did not hold office entirely at the pleasure of the Minister.

Mr. S. Collins

Some of them are holding office at everybody's displeasure.

Captain Cowan

I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with the objectionable features of this as a Bill. It does not matter who the Minister is, if a person in the position of chief executive officer or county manager holds office entirely at the pleasure of the Minister, he ceases, or he may cease, to be independent in the exercise of his functions. I can see no reason why this Bill is brought in at this stage. I ask the Minister to withdraw the Bill. If, when these elections take place, it should be necessary to get a temporary Bill for a short period, then let the Minister come before this House and get that Bill for the specific period. But a Bill, as this is, styled temporary, with power within itself for extension from time to time is obnoxious and is contrary to my ideas of all the powers that should be given by Parliament to Ministers. For that reason, I oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Murphy

Of course, I have not the least objection to anybody in this House, who feels that he is called upon to do so, assuming the rôle of the special champion of the people in this country. It is not an unfamiliar pose in politics. I do not want to refer to it any further, except to say that there are no hidden motives behind this Bill. What, of course, has been obscured—I do not know whether by accident or otherwise—is that this Bill is a purely temporary measure and that the remedies which Deputy Cowan suggested for holding the elections and enacting before the result of the elections a permanent measure dealing with county managers, are impossible, as he knows quite well.

Captain Cowan

I do not know any such thing.

Mr. Murphy

Legislation of the kind that I intend to introduce cannot be produced immediately. I think it is known also that, during the few months I have been in charge of the Local Government Department, I have had to cover a large number of activities which have absorbed a considerable amount of time. Some months ago instructions for the preparation of the heads of a Bill, which I feel sure will completely satisfy Deputy Cowan or even the most severe critic of county management in this House, were issued. As soon as that Bill is ready, arrangements will be made for its introduction in this House. That is not always a matter for the Minister, because individuals like the Parliamentary draftsman and other people have to be consulted. Various Departments of State have to be consulted, because there are ramifications of Bills which extend far outside the scope of the particular Department from which they emerge and all those things have to be considered.

This measure will be introduced as soon as it possibly can be introduced. In the meantime, it is necessary to make this temporary arrangement for one reason, because I would feel unfitted to outline a policy that might in any way or at any time be construed as conflicting with an important scheme of reorganisation which is taking place, the ultimate object of which is the improvement of public health, the safeguarding of life and the elimination and treatment of disease. Far be it from me to adopt any course, however innocently, which might be construed as having an adverse effect on that scheme of reorganisation, the merits of which I am, as a layman, entirely unable to pronounce upon, but which, in a general way, I am satisfied are good and worthy objects.

It has, of course, also been forgotten that, even if this particular provision had not been made—I wonder again whether this is a question of not adverting to the facts or whether it is a question of being blind to the facts— when the Dublin local elections take place and the members of the board of assistance are elected, they would come into office to meet an assistant county manager or county manager who would have no more or no less power than the particular chief executive officer who is being continued under this Bill. Again may I say to the House the idea of continuing the services of the present commissioner under the title of chief executive officer is for the purpose of saving the necessity for making appointments—the need for which may not be necessary in a short time. I think that is not an unfair attitude to take up. I adhere to that position.

I see nothing inconsistent or inconstant or undemocratic in providing temporary arrangements for a certain transition period in order and until certain questions are settled and in order and until the policy for the future local government of this country that I believe in would be moulded, shaped and enacted by this House. I know nothing of the extraordinary history of the institution to which Deputy MacEntee referred nor do I think I ought to.

I think it is unfortunate that he should have used the hideous term "pauper" this evening. It is a term which, in my opinion, should not be used by a public representative in this country. I thought we had long left the time when it was used and, even if it was used quite unconsciously, I think that that ugly term should not have been used this evening.

Mr. MacEntee

It was an ugly term.

Mr. Murphy

It should not have been used in connection with the unfortunate people who are housed in the Dublin Union. This was a term which was applied in the old days by some of the Ascendancy who controlled local government in this country and I think they rather enjoyed describing the poor people in the workhouses as "paupers." I have only heard it used once before in my 25 years in this House and I am very sorry that it was used this evening.

Let me assure the House that I have not the least desire to interfere with the chief executive officer for the short period during which his services may be necessary to carry out this reorganisation.

The Dáil will have an opportunity of registering its objection to any extension of this measure if that extension cannot be justified. My hope is that this reorganisation will be completed within the next six months, and that at the end of that time whatever remains to be done can be done in consultation with the elected representatives of the people in County Dublin until new proposals for local government are introduced.

I have advisedly designated this official as chief executive officer. I dislike the term manager and I have always disliked it. I believe that the Irish people dislike it too because I believe that they resent being managed and always did whether it came from a foreign system or from a system of their own. It is not for me to go now into the question of county management. My views on it are well known and they are diametrically opposed to those of my predecessors in office. However, we are both entitled to our own opinion, but I feel that the best policy is that of trusting the people.

Captain Cowan

The Minister has power under Section 3 of this Bill to continue this temporary arrangement to 30th June, 1949, that is, almost for a year. Will the Minister be content with that power and leave out the power to extend it? In other words, the Minister believes that he will have all these things rectified within six months. The Bill gives him power until the 30th June, 1949.

Mr. Murphy

The Deputy will realise that it is rather a cumbersome procedure to come back to the House with fresh proposals that may be necessary for a short period of time only. I have stated very clearly that I hope that this reorganisation will be completed within six months, and my colleague, Dr. Browne, who has assured me in that connection, is also very anxious that it will be expedited as far as possible. Deputies will realise, however, that it is not possible for either Dr. Browne or myself to give a positive answer as to the date when this necessary work will conclude. It is being carried out now and if it concluded at the end of six months there will be no necessity for me to come to the House. I do not desire to exercise the powers that a Bill of this kind confers on me for one day longer than is necessary.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to—Deputy Cowan dissenting.