We have introduced a Bill here, which is now the property of the House, and which has been accepted in principle unanimously by the House. To my mind, every member of the House has equal responsibility in making this an effective instrument for the carrying on of local government in the country. Local government is one of the most important, if not the most important, function that can be entrusted to elected representatives. Many members of this House are also members of county councils and of urban authorities. I am sure it is their desire that the best possible instrument should be forged in this House to carry out the functions of local government. It has been decided to alter the management system, as we know it, but in doing that we want to alter the system with the least possible dislocation and to ensure the maximum of efficiency. It was felt that the elected representatives did not have sufficient power under the existing system, that too much power was vested in the managers and the House has now decided, by giving a Second Reading to this Bill, to alter that system.
This Section 15 is a very important section because in that section and in the Bill generally, we aim at having the chief officer administering the affairs of the county, instead of being called a manager, eventually called the county secretary as he used to be known in the old homely days when county councils were first set up. The secretary was then the chief officer and there was no manager. We are aiming to restore that system. There is, however, a transition period in which we have to utilise the services of officials called county officers. We do not want to inflict any hardship on the existing managers.
I regret very much that accusations should have been made—Deputy Allen has graciously withdrawn them but Deputy Childers had previously made these accusations—that this Bill was directed against county managers and was intended to victimise them. I have repeatedly stated that I have nothing but respect for county managers.
Although I opposed the County Management Bill in principle I have never reflected on the managerial personnel. I spoke in opposition to the County Management Bill, when it was passing through this House but, as I said repeatedly, I have had nothing to say against the personnel of the managers. I worked with a manager in my own City of Limerick since 1934. I was mayor of that city for a couple of years and I have never used anything but the highest terms of praise for the managers. I regret very much that anybody should try to mislead the public into the belief that this Bill is directed against managers as such. It certainly is not.
Deputies' memories are not so short that they cannot remember that on this measure on Second Reading I stated, as reported in Volume 123, No 1. pages 67-68:—
"I have every confidence, therefore, that the public representatives will welcome their new responsibilities under the Bill and that they will carry out their public duties with conscientiousness and zeal. The managers are men of experience and ability. It is not their fault if they are given an unpopular status as a non-representative part of the corporate entity of the local body. Under this Bill, they will be integrated into the local service as officials employed and controlled by the elected bodies. I have every reason to believe they will welcome their new positions and that they will give good service to their local authorities. So I am sure, will all the local staffs whose establishment, mode of recruitment and conditions of service have been improved so materially in the last 25 years."
Again, as reported in Volume 123, No. 4, on 9th November, columns 653-4, I stated:—
"I participated in local government before the Management Act was passed, and neither in this House nor outside of it have I ever made a personal attack upon any manager. I have never said a word against the individuals who took office as managers under the system, but I did object to the principle of that Act. I think that these gentlemen have given very good service and are capable of giving very good service under the new conditions. But, because I have introduced a Bill which is not in accordance with the expectations of the Opposition, it is denounced as being a deceitful and fraudulent Bill."
These are the statements which I made in connection with the gentlemen who are county managers. Last night Deputy Allen referred to the fact that these men had given very patriotic service in times of emergency when called upon to accept big responsibilities. I endorse that heartily, but I think it is a back-handed compliment to these gentlemen to put a condition on their loyalty by the insinuation that they would not render such service if they were not managers.
I am perfectly confident that they will give equally loyal service as county secretaries or county officers or whatever their title may be. I am perfectly certain that they will discharge their duties faithfully. That is one point that I should like to stress particularly, that neither the Dáil nor the Minister has anything against the managerial personnel. This is just an attempt to alter the system and we have already accepted the principle on the Second Reading of the Bill.
There were a few points raised in the discussion to which I should like to reply. Deputy Childers asked about the non-grouped counties and as to whether the county secretary can do both jobs together. That will be the subject of consultation between the Minister and the councils. I am thankful to Deputy MacEntee for having corrected an error of which both Deputy Corry and Deputy O'Higgins were guilty, in regard to Section 15 and Section 8. This matter is covered in sub-section (10) of Section 15 which states:
"The provisions made by or under this section shall have effect notwithstanding any other provision of this or any other Act."
I might also refer to the fact, in connection with the amendments proposed by Deputy Ó Briain on Section 2, that we propose to alter the title of county officer so as to give a suitable Irish title as we will also give to the assistant county officer and to the county secretary on amalgamation under Section 15.
That was read for the House this evening and accepted. I am bringing in an amendment to give an Irish title to the assistant county officer and the county officer and to the county secretary appointed to replace the county officer. There will be no other title except that. It will be a title given to him by statute and so he can only be known by that particular title. In this section power is being given to enable county councils to decide for themselves, if they feel that the volume of work is too great to be entrusted to one man, to retain the services of another. There is nobody going to compel them to do that, but they will be perfectly free to do so if they wish. They can, if they desire, revert to the position which obtained prior to the managerial system and carry on the duties with one chief officer, the county secretary. I believe you will have more effective work done by having one chief officer.
It is not unknown in this country at the present time that, where you have a county secretary and a county manager, there is not that harmonious working that ought to obtain. It is not unknown that a certain amount of friction has crept in where you have the two. We are aiming to have one chief officer, and we hope that eventually his title will be the homely old one of county secretary. If the chief officer fades out, the Minister, in consultation with the county council, can promote the assistant or the county secretary as the case may be, to fill that office. It was suggested in an earlier amendment that that ought to be done automatically. In my opinion, it ought to be done in consultation. If he is an old officer he may not like to take on the post. If the county secretary is not a candidate for the job, then the Local Appointments Commissioners will fill it. Deputy MacEntee suggested that this was side stepping or walking around the Local Appointments Commissioners. Of course, if I were doing that I had got a fairly good headline from the Deputy himself in Section 36 of the Local Government Act of 1946. Under that section, Deputy MacEntee provided for by-passing the Local Appointments Commissioners by the amalgamation of offices. We are not doing anything unheard of in this section.
Deputy MacEntee professed to be in difficulties about the section. I do not think he was in any difficulty at all. By talking a lot the Deputy tried to create an imaginary web or tangle and suggested that there was some very great difficulty about the section. To my mind, there is nothing difficult about it. It clearly expresses what it is intended to do. Instead of proceeding ruthlessly in the making of appointments we are proceeding by easy stages so that there will be no hardship inflicted on anybody. We are treating the existing officers in a proper way. The transition from the managerial system to a democratic system will be carried out without dislocating the business of the councils or imposing a hardship on anybody, or by placing further burdens on the rates. Deputy Corry seemed to be worried about this latter point.
There is no question of additional officers being appointed. The reverse, in fact, will be the case. We are leaving it to the elected representatives to say whether they will or will not give effect to the merging of two posts into one. There is no dictation in the Bill, but rather an honest, genuine effort to restore to the elected representatives a full measure of liberty in the running of the affairs of their councils. I would say to Deputy Allen that, naturally, a good deal of work will be thrown on the councils. In that connection, we are taking from the county manager the executive functions which he exercises at present. I have already read for the House a list of the items that we are taking from him and transferring to the elected representatives. What I have said in that regard cannot be challenged. The councils will have their scheduled and executive functions. The executive functions, which were in the hands of the county manager, are being taken from him and given to the local authorities. Two executive committees are being set up to carry out those executive functions. In view of that, I have not the least fear but that the business of the councils will be carried out speedily and efficiently and in a democratic manner that will be satisfactory to all persons concerned. I can say that, having given the matter very serious consideration. I have had fairly good experience myself of public administration, and I am perfectly satisfied that the councils will be well able to do the work which will fall to them under this Bill. If any council feels that the work is growing too big for it, then it can appoint an assistant, but there will be only one chief officer and, that being so, there can be no rivalry. There will be one chief, and the county council will be his employer. There was a good deal of talk about democracy during this debate but there, in my opinion, so far as public administration is concerned, you are going to have democracy translated into action and efficiency.
Section 15 is a very important one, and I think all the discussion that has taken place on it has been well worth while. I have made it clear to the members of the Dáil what we are doing under it. We are not inflicting burdens on anybody. Rather, we are making it possible to have economies effected under this section. The local representatives will have power vested in them to adjust their staffs and to effect economy by the merging of staff—of two into one, or, if they wish, they can appoint an assistant.
