Vol. 149 No. 4
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), page 3, line 33, to delete "any such service will be provided" and substitute "a person shall receive treatment under or otherwise avail himself of any such service".
Paragraph (a) of the definition of individual health functions in Section 1 could be held to cover health functions generally as well as those relating to an individual. The change introduced by this amendment puts the matter beyond all doubt.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (5), page 5, line 4, to insert "sub-section (1) of" before "this section."
This is a drafting amendment. It brings the wording in sub-section (5) into line with that used in sub-sections (2) and (3).
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (7), page 5, to delete "reconstruction" in line 14 and in line 19.
The purpose of this amendment is to delete the word "reconstruction" where is occurs twice in sub-section (7) of Section 2. As sub-section (7) stands, it requires the manager to inform the members of a local authority before any works (other than works of reconstruction, maintenance or repair) are undertaken or before committing the local authority to any expenditure in connection with proposed works (other than works of reconstruction, maintenance or repair). It will be seen, therefore, that reconstruction, maintenance or repair are excluded. It is now considered that reconstruction is too wide to exclude. The word "reconstruction" could cover the reconstruction, say, of a town hall, as actually occurred on one occasion. The amendment will put it beyond all doubt. I would ask the House to accept it.
Does amendment No. 3 meet amendment No. 4?
My amendment was intended to cover that very position. Is the Minister satisfied that his amendment covers it?
I am satisfied that amendment No. 3 covers the Deputy's point.
I move amendment No. 5:—
Before Section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—
Section 2 of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, is hereby amended by the addition of the following paragraph to sub-section (1):—
(d) rate collectors.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 31 can be discussed together.
I shall not delay the House. I have given reasons on a number of occasions for my belief that the present method of appointing rate collectors is most unsatisfactory. I am speaking strictly from experience as a member of the local authority in County Roscommon. For the information of Deputies, it might be no harm to outline what took place there recently in connection with the appointment of two rate collectors. For 12 months before the appointments were made every member of the local authority was haunted by potential candidates. The county councillors were canvassed not merely by the candidates but by their friends and their friends' friends. I had not ease or peace for at least six months from people begging me to support this, that and the other candidate. Two appointments were made. I have no objection to either of the two men selected but I think that, when the council arrived at a decision, these people were appointed because they were able to use stronger political pull than the other candidates. I do not think that is a fair basis on which to make any appointment in the public service.
I would like to see a standard of education established, that every man appointed as rate collector will have to fulfil. As far as I can see, there is no standard at all at the present time except that the successful applicant must be in a position to obtain the support of the majority of the members of the local authority.
That is a fairly difficult standard to achieve.
I do not think it would be a very difficult matter to have a written examination and to have an interview board set up to examine each candidate to see that an applicant is able to read and write and bless himself. I understand that for appointments as clerical officers to county councils or for appointments to the Civil Service political pull plays a very small part. I hope that is the case. A man who has to handle accounts and finance should have a good standard of education. There is only one way of finding whether he has or not and that is by giving him a test.
That is done in some counties.
I want the position to be clarified and made uniform in all counties. It may be that in some counties they go through the formality of testing each candidate's ability to read and write. When that is over, the pressure begins. It is quite possible that ten or 15 candidates could be interviewed by a board set up by a local authority, all of whom would pass the test and the man who got the lowest marks could be appointed by the local authority. I think that is wrong. The test only serves as a cover up.
I was interested in Deputy Murphy's interjection. I am sure Deputy Murphy would not like to see staff officers, home assistance officers or any other such local officers appointed because they were able to get the support of ten or 15 county councillors. If regulations are laid down for the appointment of such officers, I do not see why similar regulations should not be enforced with regard to the appointment of rate collectors.
I commend the amendment to the House. I hope it will be accepted, because the present system is most unsatisfactory. I am sure there are other Deputies with views to express on this so, in conclusion, I will remind the House that when the Managerial Act came into force one of the functions left to the local authorities was this appointment of rate collector and I, for the life of me, cannot understand why that function is left to them. It may be uncharitable to suggest that the people in the Custom House, or the top dogs if you like, felt that it would be desirable, while the county manager and his officials were guiding the destinies of the particular counties, that it would be better to have the councillors occupied in something else. It would remind you of a crowd of dogs around a bowl—this situation in connection with the appointments of rate collectors.
I think it is wrong that councillors' minds should be occupied with such appointments when they should be on the more important issue of striking the rate and making every possible effort to reduce the burden of rates. It should not be necessary for them to devote their minds or occupy their time listening to the stories and the pleas of potential rate collectors. I think it is most unfair that this function should have been left to them. It is not a question of asking Deputies or members of local authorities to shelve their responsibilities. I think that such functions as this and as the selection of tenants for houses, which is a matter in which the county medical officer of health rightly has a very strong hand, should not be left to local authorities. Certain Deputies may suggest that this amendment, instead of giving back power to the local authorities, would take powers away from them. I am quite willing to accept any such criticisms because I feel that this is one power which the local authority should not have.
I should like to endorse everything Deputy McQuillan has said in regard to this amendment. The amendment which stands in my name is intended to achieve the same purpose, but I am not sure whether we have accomplished the best types of amendment possible. I feel quite sure, if the House and the Minister agree generally with the sense of the amendment and with the purpose behind it, that the Minister would be able on the Report Stage to introduce an amendment which would cover the purpose more fully and adequately. As Deputy McQuillan pointed out, this is the only form of political patronage that was left to county councillors when the County Management Act was introduced, and one can see very little reason for it. It has as we know— and I am not saying this by way of criticism of any Party in the House or in the country—to do with the appointment of rate collectors, and we know that such appointments have been regarded as being political. In fact, they have been the breeders of the worst type of political patronage that could exist. We should have enough courage to face up to that position and to put an end to it.
I am quite certain that every responsible county councillor in the country would himself welcome a position where the county council was relieved of that responsibility. I am not a member of a local body, but inevitably in the course of my political activities I have a good deal of contact with members of public bodies and I know the very serious problems created for them by these political appointments. We know that in certain cases where certain political majorities exist on county councils the tendency would be to appoint all the rate collectors from the members of that Party. That is extremely bad. It does not matter what Party happens to be in the majority; it is equally bad and has a demoralising effect on the public life of the country generally.
One of the worst evils of this present position arises from the fact that, psychologically, it creates the impression in the minds of the public that wire-pulling and near-bribery are the effective methods of securing an appointment. That leaves a very bad odour.
I do not know whether other Deputies in the House have had the same experience as I, but every day in my mail I am approached to use political influence in order to secure something for somebody, something to which a person is usually not entitled, on the grounds that that person is, and always has been, a close supporter of my political viewpoint. I imagine others have had the same experience. I imagine that many of those who write these letters to me, write letters couched in similar terms to influential Deputies in all Parties assuring every one of them that they have always supported them politically and have always voted for them or their Party.
I think we would be doing something very useful if, as far as the appointment of rate collectors is concerned, we adopted this amendment or something along its lines, because I think no clearer example of political patronage exists than does in this. I think that, on the whole, an amendment of this kind would be welcomed by members of public bodies throughout the country—at least by responsible members of public bodies. In the final analysis, of course, even the Party that have a majority on a public body and are in a position to give appointments of this kind to their supporters—even such a Party lose by it in the end because for every appointment they give they invariably make ten enemies. Obviously, if they had the appointment of four or five collectors out of 20 candidates, the 15 or 16 not appointed become sworn enemies of the Party who did not appoint them, so that there are not even political advantages to be gained by the appointments.
For these reasons I urge the Minister very strongly to accept this amendment. I do not know whether Deputy McQuillan or myself have successfully framed the best type of amendment to deal with the situation we have in mind. I think there is a slight difference in the amendment tabled by Deputy McQuillan and that put down by Deputies O'Connor, Tully and myself, but Deputy McQuillan's amendment would leave the option to the local authority whether or not to ask the Local Appointments Commission to make a recommendation for a certain appointment. According to the amendment which we have tabled it would become mandatory on the council to refer the appointment to the commission. I am not quite satisfied that my amendment meets the situation as fully as would be desirable. However, if we could discuss the question in principle then it would be an easy matter to frame an amendment that would deal with the position.
We did discuss among ourselves whether the Local Appointments Commission would be the best body in whom to vest responsibility for making recommendations for these appointments. There are many arguments against it and there would be many arguments suggesting that some form of local board would be more suitable. But then you are up against the difficulty as to who is going to appoint the local board and as to whether or not the members of the board would be known locally. Of course, if they were known locally their lives would be a hell to them because they would be the object of the canvasser. But again this is a matter upon which, I am sure, if the Minister agreed with the general purposes of the amendment, we could easily find the most satisfactory method of dealing with the situation.
Deputies McQuillan and MacBride have severely indicted the system of appointing rate collectors by the county councils. They have in mind, of course, the system which some councils operate of appointing rate collectors by a majority vote of the council. I agree with a good deal of what they had to say in the matter but there is nothing mandatory in any sections of the Act to compel county councils to employ rate collectors or appoint them by vote of the council. I have opposed that system myself for the reasons outlined by Deputy McQuillan, and the majority of the members of the Cork County Council believe that it is a bad system. I am rather surprised, in view of the statements made particularly by Deputy McQuillan, that the Roscommon County Council has not viewed it in the same light and got rate collectors by some other system.
I believe a more satisfactory system is collection through the office. It is fair to everyone. Down in Cork—I am sure what obtains in Cork obtains in every other local authority area in the country—we are informed by the manager and the county accountant that collection through the office costs somewhere in or around 40 per cent. to 45 per cent. of collection through the system of rate collectors no matter how they are appointed. The council has adopted that method for some years back with very good results. Collection through the office is, in my opinion, more satisfactory than collection through the rate collectors and I think we have arrived at the stage when there is no need for rate collectors. Let the rates be collected through the office. If it means extra staff in the office this staff will be recruited through competitive examination which means that a few extra boys and girls will get employment and will get it on a competitive basis.
Undoubtedly the statement made by Deputies McQuillan and MacBride is quite correct, that you cannot possibly get an appointment by vote of the council unless you have very strong political pull and in many counties you would have to have support in two or three Parties in order to secure the appointment. This is unquestionably a bad method and so far as Cork is concerned I believe it is a method that will never again be employed. It is not that I am reflecting in any way on the integrity of individual county councillors but they are placed in an impossible position when applicants come to them, strong political supporters. It is rather difficult not to toe the Party line and vote for whoever the Party nominates. In every county where appointments are made in this way the Party as a whole decides who they are to support and the members have to fall in line. I am just making the suggestion—whether the Minister could give effect to it on the Report Stage or not, I do not know —that the vote system in regard to the appointment of rate collectors should be wiped out completely.
Any county council that wishes to can do that.
I know.
What are you going to do with county councils that will not?
I cannot do anything about it under this particular Bill.
Liberty of the subject.
I am not too favourably disposed towards handing over the appointments to the Local Appointments Commission because a rate collector is a somewhat different individual from other people. I would be fearful that if the Local Appointments Commission had the making of these appointments they might possibly appoint what to them would seem the best man but when he would go down to his collection area he might not be the most suitable type of person for collecting rates. We have a number of instances where undue pressure has been brought on certain ratepayers to make them pay, as it were, forthwith. If the rate collectors had adopted a broader outlook and given those people a chance, perhaps until the next fair day, for a month or six weeks, they would have been able in many cases to meet their commitments.
I do not think that arises on the amendment. We are discussing the manner in which the rate collector should be appointed.
But the alternative methods have been mentioned.
The alternative methods of rate collecting are not relevant on the amendment.
It says here in Deputy MacBride's amendment: "Rate collectors shall be appointed at the request of a local authority by the Local Appointments Commission and not otherwise." I am just suggesting that that may not be a good system, to have rate collectors appointed by the Local Appointments Commission.
There is another amendment, No. 31, which is being discussed on this.
The three are being taken together.
If we could find a system where counties would adhere to appointing rate collectors by getting some person with local knowledge in a particular collection district it might be of advantage. Probably 70 per cent. of the people in an area might be in a position to pay their rates in one sum and you might have another percentage who, due to financial circumstances, might not find it so easy to pay in one sum and might require a little leniency from the rate collectors. I am sorry to say that that leniency has not been extended in Cork by some of the collectors but so far as I can judge it has been extended by the office. Where the collection is made through the office, if any member of the council approaches the office and explains that so-and-so is not in a position to pay his rates for another few weeks he gets an opportunity——
That does not seem to be relevant on any of the amendments.
I thought we could discuss alternative methods.
The Deputy is discussing alternative methods of collecting rates. The amendments deal with the manner in which rate collectors should be appointed.
I agree that they should not be appointed by the vote of the council, but then there is a third danger if they are appointed back stage by some kind of anonymous selection board. Is there any danger that there might be an approach by some back avenue to the personnel of the selection board? I think it is a bad line to take to think that all these selection boards are infalliable, that they are above reproach. I think it is quite in order to say that approaches have been made to the personnel of selection boards and possibly have had good results at times. The Minister should bear that in mind.
In conclusion, I wish to say that the Minister should, if possible, make a law compelling councils to collect the rates through the offices, and the personnel would then be employed on competitive examination which would give satisfaction to people, to the Deputies who are moving these amendments, and every council in the country.
It is quite obvious that Deputy Murphy has no confidence or faith in human beings. He does not want rate collectors appointed by human agents, or rates collected by human agencies. He wants a machine that is invisible. That is all.
A certain agitation has gone on for the amendment of the Management Bill, and for more powers to be given to local authorities. I take it that is why the Minister brought it in, otherwise the machine was working reasonably and satisfactorily. There is room for amendment. Every Act in this country could probably be amended in certain respects, with advantage. There was a cry during the last general election, and which had gone on for years: "Give back the democratic control to the local authorities." That cry was repeated and repeated.
And this is the answer.
All over the country the cry came: "Give us back our democratic control." With a change of Government, the group most insistent for the giving back of democratic control was one wing of the present Government, the Labour Party. There was a pleading and whinging cry which has gone on for years: "Give back the democratic control to the local authority." Now the Minister comes in with the Bill to give back some control to local authorities in some respects, not taking any more from them. Deputy Murphy supports this amendment. He objects to the amendment and he supports it. He wants to take from the local authority the democratic control they have of making one appointment out of all the appointments of the other people in their employment. Local authorities have a direct responsibility for electing one officer or a set of officers. Those officers have collected the rates in a democratic way.
Deputy MacBride and Deputy McQuillan must know quite well that local authorities have power, at the moment, to collect through the post. They must ask the Minister's sanction to depart from the system. The Minister has power to waive that, for the Minister makes a case why it should be waived in each particular instance. They are appointed by examination, and the local authorities would have to ask the Minister to agree to allow them elect rate collectors by direct vote. Every council has that power. It needs no amendment of the Act.
Some councils, in the exercise of their democratic rights, are determined that they will elect and select rate collectors by the direct vote of their council. By and large they have succeeded admirably in getting suitable personnel to collect those rates. The Minister for Local Government knows quite well that the returns from almost every county council area where this law operates are reasonably satisfactory. The numbers of defaulters are infinitesimal, and now we have proposals from Deputy McQuillan and Deputy MacBride to do away with this and to hand over the few remaining powers and put them into a machine, an unknown machine and, as Deputy Murphy pointed out, with an unknown personnel. That machine will, if the Dáil so decides, select rate collectors, and will send down to Deputy Murphy's area or my area people of whom we have never heard. They may come from any other part of Ireland.
There is no power in law to compel the Appointments Commission to select personnel. Every Irishman, no matter where he comes from, has a claim to be appointed by the Local Appointments Commission. I believe that the present system in operation is not bad. It gives a certain amount of responsibility to every local authority. It may make members slightly annoyed because they are canvassed, or because their door is knocked on a dozen or five dozen occasions, where there is a vacancy for a rate collector in a particular county. Why should any of us offer ourselves as members of a local authority if we are not prepared to take a joke, so to speak, to do the business of a council and to take a responsibility in our hands? The main complaint was that members of the council were being canvassed. We do not object to our doors being knocked on on numerous occasions.
Political jobbery.
There is no political jobbery whatever in it.
Nonsense!
There were a number of posts filled within the past year or two, and the group I represent did not get any of the appointments. It was quite all right. There were farmers' sons, workingmen's sons, selected who were good, useful men. We had no grouse whatever for not getting any of the appointments because the majority groups on the council made their appointments from other than those we voted for. I have no objection to that. They were good, useful Wexford lads, quite capable of doing the work. I am certain that if the Local Appointments Commission had made those appointments, not one of those Wexford boys would have got any of them. Some careerists who studied for them would have walked in and got them. Those neighbours of mine who are politically opposed to me would not have got them. I am glad that the system was there, and that these lads from the country areas who are quite capable of doing the jobs got them. An effort is being made here to-night, by the sober democrats who wanted to have more power given back to the local authorities, to get these few remaining jobs, where men can earn £400, £600 or £700 a year, into a machine, in order to fill them.
I hope the Minister will oppose this amendment and leave this bit of democratic power in the hands of the local authorities. It is not being abused in any way. It is in operation now for a great number of years. Each local authority have at the moment the power to elect, by competitive examination or otherwise, people to these posts. I suggest that no amendment whatever to the Bill is necessary. We believe it is good to see, for instance, County Longford men, County Meath men or County Westmeath men collecting rates in their own counties and appointed directly by votes, if the council so desire, in their own particular county. It is humbug to say that there is anything wrong with the system or that politics enter into it, and so forth. I have known men who went to politicians when a vacancy existed and yet they very quickly told their friends who appointed them, that they had a right to change their politics if they chose. That is as it should be.
I believe the House should reject these amendments and leave the local authorities this one bit of democratic power of selecting men or women in their own counties to fill a few £400, £600 or £700 a year jobs. These jobs are the only remaining jobs offering any kind of a decent livelihood that are filled by a democratic system in the hands of the local authorities. I submit they will make fewer mistakes than the Local Appointments Commission or any other body that may be set up. Whatever their politics may be I have full confidence in them. If persons who support me politically are elected by my council then all to the good but, if they are not, I have no objection if someone who is opposed to me in politics gets the job. The fact is that I am glad to see a person getting a job and I would prefer this system to any other system that could be devised.
I am glad of this opportunity of putting our ideas on this amendment before the House. I support the amendment. Three years ago, the Kerry County Council advertised for 29 rate collectors. We had not rate collectors in our county: we had what is known as a central system. On three successive occasions the auditor in his report recommended the council to consider the appointment of rate collectors. We acted on the advice of the auditor and proceeded to appoint 29 rate collectors. Needless to say, there was a mad scramble for 29 fairly good jobs in the county. I suppose you could not blame the people. They went head over heels in a mad scramble for the jobs and made life a misery for everybody concerned. Luckily enough, the Department stepped in and said: You cannot appoint 29 rate collectors: you can only appoint 26. I submit there was no freedom there. In my view it was a glorious opportunity to abandon the whole idea.
Deputy Allen seems to take the matter very lightly—in fact, as a joke. As far as I am concerned, it is very far from being a joke. Deputy M. P. Murphy seems to favour a central system. As against that, the auditor recommended us on three successive occasions to appoint rate collectors. I take it that the central system is a failure for this very simple reason. Why do the income-tax people not tell people to send them their income-tax and thus avoid having income-tax collectors? It must be obvious that it would involve a colossal saving to the Exchequer if the people could be persuaded to part with their money and send it in. The same thing applies to rates. Again, take, for instance, insurance companies. Why do they not get people to send in their premiums? The reason is that the system would not work and, for that very reason, I believe the central system is a failure. Some people who have not experience of it think it is all sunshine, but it is not.
The central system is devoid of all sympathy or understanding so far as people who are in difficulties are concerned. The rate collector who is conversant with the position in his area can have a sympathetic approach and adjust himself to the position as he finds it. At times, terrible hardship is inflicted on ratepayers and that is especially so under the central system. People working under that system become bureaucrats in one or two years and they are immune from any attack from any public representative or anybody else. They sit behind a desk in their office and plot their course. Deputy Allen seems to think we are surrendering the last vestige of democratic right——
No.
He asked why should we surrender or be content to surrender every other appointment, equally so: the appointment, for instance, of county medical officers of health, of a public health nurse, of a cottage tenant——
You never had it.
Yes, even in my lifetime I have seen dispensary doctors appointed by a local authority.
And, in many local authorities, on a very dishonest system.
Before Deputy McQuillan was born.
Deputy O'Connor on the amendment.
We all saw it in the early days of the Kerry County Council, and heard of it. If a person was conversant with the affairs in his own area he knew all about it. One still hears stories about this, that and the other. It happened as recently as 1926.
Do not run down your own county.
My county is all right, do not worry. It will look after itself and the Deputies from my county will look after themselves. If Deputy Allen will look after his own county he will be doing quite well.
So I am.
I hope Deputy Allen is. I advise very strongly against the central system, in view of my experience of it. It is a bad system. As I have already said, a local rate collector is surely approachable whereas if you have a rate collector for a county cloistered in an office he becomes a bureaucrat. He works through a legal adviser. He issues civil bills or prosecutions, as the case may be, without due regard to the capacity of the persons concerned to pay and irrespective of whether or not they are in difficulties.
That does not obtain in Cork.
I do not know what obtains in Cork. I am just describing the picture as I see it.
The Deputy will appreciate that the method of the collection of rates does not arise on these amendments. We are simply discussing the method by which the rate collector should be selected.
I believe the present system should be abandoned, even though it be a surrender of a democratic right, the last vestige of democratic right that is retained by a local authority. A system whereby the advertisement for rate collectors can be confined to a county, confining it to Kerry men or Wexford men as the case may be, would obviate any possibility of people coming in from Longford or Mayo to grab up the good jobs. That work can be done by the men of the county, by confining the advertisement. It would be much happier for everybody. There are plenty of other powers which can be confined to a local authority and they will probably come up in the course of this discussion. I would strongly recommend that some system like that of the Appointments Commission be devised for the appointment of rate collectors.
I am inclined to agree with the point of view of my colleague, Deputy Allen, on the question that the integrity of local bodies and the powers which they had in the past are involved in the amendment. Time and again we had complaints from different parties—probably we had complaints ourselves—but we had not sufficient power in certain ways under the managerial system. The general purport of this Bill is to widen the scope of the individual powers of elected representatives on local bodies.
Against that background it is difficult to see how we should come to this House, as members of a local body, to complain about powers that we retained when the managerial system was introduced. It is difficult to understand why we should complain that that power—the simple power of appointing rate collectors—was not taken from us along with other powers. In fact, it must be tremendous vindication of the Managerial Act generally. The first thing I would ask myself as a member of a local body is this—has the system tended in the past towards getting us a bad type of rate collector? What type of rate collector have we appointed under this system? Are our collectors capable of doing their work or have we appointed men who were not qualified, who have proved to be duds and who have not been successful in their jobs? I can speak only for my own county and the Minister will bear me out—and I am sure it influenced him in the drafting of the Bill—when I say that we have been very fortunate and have neither corruption nor incompetent or unsuccessful collectors. To advocate here now a change in the system would be a reflection on those we have appointed in the past. It would mean telling the House it has been an unsuccessful system and that through it we got unsuccessful rate collectors. We have no such thing.
I do not know a single instance— or that any member of a council ever could put on record a single instance— where there was any corruption or undue political bias used in the appointment of a rate collector. We certainly have had our share of people soliciting our support, but to say that the objection to the system is that the preponderance of political influence one way or another in a council is used to get a particular political appointee successfully installed in office, is simply saying that any council will use its political majority and use every power in that Bill when it becomes an Act to force through decisions in favour of friends or political favourites. It is merely a question of whether the particular local body will use its political influence or not, if it has a majority, using the different powers that are given to councils under this or any other Act relating to local authorities.
I simply apply the test as to whether we have got a suitable rate collector in the past or not and I must agree that the system has worked quite well. We may at times have incurred the displeasure of certain candidates. A local representative cannot support everybody, but a local representative who is worthy of being appointed to represent his people on a local authority should be able to stand on his feet and take a decision on behalf of someone he thinks is a suitable candidate for the job and support him. If he does that, he will find that his actions will be commended eventually and that he will be looked up to. I do not know if the system lends itself to corruption in other areas or not—possibly it does— but I will say—in favour of a council which has had many vicissitudes with regard to political majority—that by and large this system as I know it has worked reasonably well, and has given us reasonably good men in the job who have carried out the work successfully. For that reason, I would not like to cast any reflection on the work we have been doing under the system in the past, by condemning it here now. I would be satisfied to maintain the status quo so far as the system is concerned and for that reason I do not fully agree with the proposed amendment.
This discussion undoubtedly can be very helpful to us on all sides. As Deputy MacBride mentioned, even the amendments may not all tend towards being perfect, but surely we can discuss them without any commiserations or cross-talk. It is well known that Deputy Allen cannot understand our situation. Deputy Allen has a colleague here at present, Deputy MacCarthy, and it would be well for him to understand that in Cork his whole Party decided on a certain line of action. If we are going to discuss this, let us try to forget the cheap gibes as to whether we are speaking about the honesty or dishonesty of the successful candidate. We are only discussing the system of appointment. Surely if we believe—as many of us do believe—that the present system is not all that it could be, we will not get any further towards improving it by cross-talk or cheap gibes about honest or dishonest political Parties or political rate collectors. Let us forget that.
In order that one may get a fair picture of the whole problem, I would mention the system we have in operation, instead of what Deputy O'Connor calls the central system. Every two and a half or three years, there is an examination to admit boys and girls into the service. Our system has been by a majority vote, members of all Parties expressing their views. The system put into operation was that by collecting through the office there were automatically jobs for boys and girls, who by their ability in the written and oral tests passed the examinations and were put on a panel. While the amendments suggested by Deputy McQuillan and others are not all that we would wish them to be, my opinion is that the best system would be through the appointment of boys and girls who have proved their ability.
I consider that these amendments make provision for a better system than the system in operation. There is no use in our indulging in argument as to whether members, in giving their votes, were honest or dishonest in their political outlook, nor is there any use in our speaking of the merits or demerits of candidates on the basis of their political convictions. We simply concern ourselves here with the problem: Is there a better way of appointment of rate collectors than the present system? Some of us believe that there is, and it is because we believe there is a possibility of a better way that we support these amendments.
Furthermore, with regard to the viewpoint expressed by some Deputies that members of local authorities should accept the responsibility of voting, that is all very fine, but, as a member of a local authority, I am entitled to put this consideration before myself. There may be a vacancy for a rate collector in an area 90 miles away from the area I represent. Would I be in a position to say that I could examine the merits and demerits of all the candidates in an area so far away?
Your council has authority to have a qualifying examination to assess the merits. It is done in most counties.
Yes, but the qualifying examination is not always put into operation and, as we have seen, the results of these examinations have not been an overriding factor in the selection of candidates in many instances. As the nearest approach to what we consider to be a better system than the present system we—Deputy Murphy and I—are in favour of these amendments.
I am somewhat amused by the approach to the amendments, particularly on the part of Deputy MacBride. In all civilised countries where there is democratic government and where the rule is by the majority, there are what are known as plums of office.
Fruits of office.
Plums, not fruits, such as the opportunities that the Government in power can give, through its Attorney-General, to a panel of barristers——
That should be changed, too.
These cannot be discussed on these amendments.
——or the filling of vacancies as district justices. We all know that, in civilised democratic countries, where you have rule by a majority, the majority can, in their wisdom, pick qualified people from their own supporters—and I say "qualified"—to fill these vacancies and nobody questions the qualifications of these people. The fact is that there is this exercise of the power of dispensing this kind of favour, if you like, as one of the plums of office, of being a Government or the majority Party in a local authority. I am therefore very amused to hear Deputy MacBride approach this matter as he did when he came into the House first when he wanted every member of the House to be in his seat all the time the House sat, doing nothing but legislating. He even wanted a law passed preventing Deputies from having access to the Departments of State. Now he has changed.
What has this to do with the amendments?
And it is a very good thing.
The argument which Deputy MacBride made in favour of his amendments was to the effect that canvassing by applicants—he did not say so, but I assume that he meant qualified persons—was in itself a distasteful act and almost in a sense an act leading to corruption. I am in agreement with Deputy O'Connor in the argument he put forward, except that the argument which he makes for the amendment is the argument I would make against it. I agree with most of what he says. It would be a fatal blunder to have what is called a central office for the collection of rates. I believe that what he says is correct, that the rate collector who goes from house to house and who knows the circumstances of the moment, can exercise a certain leniency, can help the people over stiles by taking the rates on an instalment basis. If he is the humane person Deputy O'Connor describes him as, that part is easy enough, but he must be somebody from the area who knows these people and dealing almost with his own neighbours. Generally speaking, the collection of rates particularly where this form of appointment operates is always very high and very satisfactory.
The only fault which the movers of these amendments find with the system is that they do not like the method by which these people are appointed, but they have not said a word of adverse comment on their effectiveness as rate collectors, notwithstanding the method of appointment. I am a member of a local authority and I have more confidence in open appointment to a position by the councillors than I have in an appointment made by a selection board, the members of which nobody knows and the members of which in many cases do not know the applicants as well as do the public representatives and who have no further responsibility, once their recommendation has been accepted.
Dublin Corporation does not appoint rate collectors.
I am not talking of rate collectors. We make other appointments. I hope we will have the right to appoint a city manager and I hope it will be done openly and above board, because I believe that Deputy O'Connor and I, if we have the responsibility of appointing a person for a specific job, will give more consideration to his capacity to do the job than to his friendship with either of us or his political allegiance. I have more confidence in the responsibility that local representatives have.
I suggest that Deputy MacBride should consult a little bit more fully with some members of his own Party who are members of local authorities. You have the position where a local authority may opt to fill these positions by one method or another, by having the collection made by themselves in the office or by rate collectors. The whole trouble is that we are thinking of the distant past.
I am sorry that Deputy Desmond is leaving because his argument was on the basis that they in Cork are in a minority and the Fianna Fáil Party are in a majority. Therefore, they could make all the appointments.
They are not, as a matter of fact.
That is his argument. That is what he says.
The Deputy must be dreaming to think that Fianna Fáil are in the majority.
Deputy Desmond says so.
He made no such reference.
What did he say then?
Deputy Desmond said the majority of all Parties in the Cork County Council, including the whole Fianna Fáil Party. I never differentiated between majority and minority. I said all members of all Parties.
Deputy Desmond objects to this method of appointment by the members of local authorities.
And so did all the Fianna Fáil Party.
They did not to go for this amendment. They had another method under the law by which they could fill these vacancies by promotion of the staffs into their own offices.
They did not do it.
Why do they not do it?
The Deputy should not twist his own words.
The Deputy always uses the word "twist". If there is a division on these amendments, I certainly will oppose them because I think what Deputy Allen says is correct. The Labour Party in particular demanded full restoration of all the powers of democracy to the local authorities. It was one of their planks on the platforms during the general election. One of the things usually thrown at Fianna Fáil as a Government was why they did not do this. The present Minister said he was going to do it. It was one of the 12 points, I believe. Every move that is being made is taking away from the local authorities the few little rights they had under the managerial system. I hope the House will not take seriously, as a reason for supporting the amendments, the arguments made either by Deputy McQuillan or Deputy MacBride.
I have yet to hear of county councils appointing rate collectors who are unsatisfactory. I think it was Deputy Allen who pointed out that the only persons for whom a canvass can be made, if there is a canvass, are those who will have qualified beforehand. If there is any doubt, surely to goodness the local authority can say that only those who have properly qualified and passed the test may apply for consideration and election by the local authority.
Deputy MacBride referred to the situation which confronts all of us in regard to the constituent who writes a letter and says he is exercising his political affiliation as one of the rights he has to demand. I get a number of letters and I get an occasional letter like that too. If the Deputy and I in times of an election invoke the aid of a number of voluntary people to help us—sometimes some of them are unemployed persons—and if they believe in our policy and if afterwards a particular post arises in a factory or anywhere else and if this man is capable and unemployed and anxious for the work, surely to goodness he has the right to ask us to give him some support? I am amazed at this heavenly, almost supernatural, attitude of life that Deputy MacBride is trying to introduce into ordinary modern politics.
I am opposed to these amendments because I think there is sufficient discretion in the existing law for the exercise of common sense by any local authority in making the appointments referred to. They can in the first place get the manager to appoint an interview board which will insist on a certain standard. They can have the appointments made by the council on a fulltime basis. We have two or three such men in Cork. I am in favour of promotion of men who justify themselves in working for the public authority once they get by the recognised channels through competitive examination. They are placed on a panel or they are placed by the manager in the health offices, the rates offices or the roads offices or wherever he may place them. Having had experience there, the council selects the most competent man or the manager selects him from the rates department to act in the office as a rate collector. It is just the same as if he were travelling from house to house. He came from the public and as a result of his own merits he gets promotion to that particular office without any influence whatever. He has risen to that position. If there is occasion to go to a fair or a market he is the man who is in charge—he will have two or three others with him —to meet people whose circumstances perhaps are such that they cannot meet their demands readily. He is not so inhuman that he is not prepared to do that. That is the second system.
The third system is election by the public authority itself. An advertisement is issued and a certain number of names come in. Perhaps the different Parties decide on a candidate. Surely they will have to justify themselves to their own supporters and followers for the selection they make. They go before the council and a vote is taken and, if the council approves, somebody is appointed. No Party in Cork has a majority on the council and it is ridiculous for anybody to say that this Party or that Party are in a position to appoint a rate collector there. They are not. The man has to stand his chance.
We have all three systems applied in Cork. We have a few permanent men who were appointed by interview boards some years ago. We have a number of districts done by office collection. They cost exactly half of what it would cost if you appointed rate collectors as such. At the same time, the big majority of the districts are collected by rate collectors who were elected by the vote of the council. Now there are only two rate collectors in the whole county who did not qualify for the special bonus awarded for a 95 per cent. rate collection last year. That shows that competent men are appointed. Regardless of what their politics may have been, they were certainly fitted for the job.
With these three alternatives before us, I fail to see how anybody can look for a fourth. The Appointments Commissioners are there for the purpose of filling key positions. That is their only purpose. Local men know best the needs of their own particular areas. They know the people who are likely to serve most efficiently and who are likely to have due consideration for all their interests. I do not think these amendments should receive the support of the House.
I would have hoped that these amendments would have received a more objective approach and I appeal now to members of the Fianna Fáil Party who, on the whole, have spoken against them, to approach the matter objectively and to give their votes, not on the basis of purely Party politics but on the basis of what the amendments seek to achieve.
I have never heard anything said against the Donegal County Council, against the Wexford County Council, or against the Cork County Council——
Or any other county council.
——but I have heard, and I have satisfied myself as to the circumstances, of one county council where, not many moons ago, seven rate collectors were appointed. Before the appointments were made there was a Party caucus and these appointments were in effect made at that Party caucus; in five of the appointments made the persons appointed were relatives of leading members of a particular Party in the particular area.
Brothers of the councillors!
The Parliamentary Secretary tells me some were brothers of the county councillors.
That was the only qualification they had.
Order!
It is useless to pretend here that Deputies are living in the moon. Everybody knows that in many cases these appointments are made purely and simply on a political basis and every kind of corruption and bribery is attempted in order to secure appointment. We all know particular instances. The question does not apply in Dublin because Dublin does not appoint rate collectors. It has been said that this is an attempt to limit democracy. On the contrary, this is an effort to protect democracy from corruption, the corruption which is the downfall of democracy.
Because of the exception that you mentioned.
I am sure that they are not exceptions; I wish they were.
You have exonerated certain ones.
It does not apply to the local authority in Dublin because that body does not appoint rate collectors.
It does not apply to Wexford.
I have never heard anything against Wexford, Donegal or Cork. I am in sufficiently close touch with the workings of public bodies to know what I am talking about; we have representatives on most public bodies throughout the country. I know the problems with which they have to deal. I know how often these problems are put before us from different parts of the country. I wish that Deputies, instead of trying to pretend that appointments of that kind are made purely on merit and that every county councillor has the right approach, would face the difficulties and, irrespective of Party affiliations, get together in an attempt to remedy the position. I think that would make for much healthier public life. Deputy Briscoe complained that I had objected in the past to members of the Dáil interfering in Government Departments. I did object, I still object and I think the Dáil would be a much better place if Deputies limited themselves and their activities to legislating here.
The Deputy does not have to go to Departments now.
That cannot be argued in relation to the particular matter before the House.
Possibly the reason why this attitude to appointments on public bodies has arisen is because of something that happened in the past. The fact that there is a wrong approach to appointments on public bodies arises, I think, from historical reasons to a certain extent. For a long time public bodies were the only bodies composed of Irish people—fully national bodies—and the result of that was naturally that an effort was always made to appoint people who had national views. Probably that was quite a good reason at the time.
It was just as political to the opponents of these nationally minded people.
It may have been but it was part of a situation which had been imposed on the country and it was a reaction against that situation. It may have been a wrong approach, but it was one of the inevitable results of our being dominated by another country. We have got rid of that domination now and surely we should aim at trying to set the highest standard we can in public life. I think that would benefit all Parties.
How would judicial appointments be made?
We are not discussing judicial appointments.
I think they should be made by a board.
We are discussing the appointment of rate collectors, and Deputy MacBride is in possession.
Surely it is in order to use the example of other appointments in order to further one's case.
The Deputy was interrupting. Deputy MacBride is in possession.
I would be in favour of making all appointments through some system of boards. I have so proposed on a number of occasions and I hope we will get an opportunity of discussing that matter and putting that system into operation; and I hope Deputy Briscoe will support me.
I will oppose you.
I think it is equally bad that any type of appointment should be made on a political basis. The Fianna Fáil Party has been the only Party to oppose this. If they examine the position seriously I think they will realise that the present system is a bad one and appreciate that, even if a particular appointment has operated to their temporary advantage in a particular case, ultimately it has had adverse reactions on their own organisation. It is something which is bound to do damage.
In our case, the appointees came in originally through examination and were subsequently promoted.
That is splendid. I think that is the ideal way. I think it was Deputy O'Connor who made the case against what might be called the centralised system of rate collection. It may be there is a good case from that point of view.
He is quite right.
I do not know enough about it. I trust Deputy O'Connor's judgment and Deputy McCarthy's far more in relation to these matters because they are familiar with the particular problem. I am not so much concerned about particular appointments. The fact that 100 or 200 rate collectors are appointed on a political basis may not be good for public administration, but the country can survive that. What is particularly bad is the psychological outlook which that type of political appointment breeds in people generally. It is that situation I would like to see remedied. I appeal to Fianna Fáil Deputies, many of whom I am sure in their hearts agree with this proposal, to support this amendment in the realisation that it will make ultimately for much healthier public administration if it is carried into effect.
We are not discussing the methods of collecting rates but we are discussing the methods of appointing those who do collect the rates so that I do not wish to express any view on the argument put forward by Deputies M.P. Murphy and O'Connor. I do not think they are appropriate or relevant to the case, though I may say in passing I have a considerable amount of sympathy with their points of view.
Three attempts have been made to amend the County Management Acts. The first attempt was made some seven years ago by one of my predecessors, the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Keyes, when he was Minister for Local Government. He made the first attempt. My immediate predecessor, the present Deputy Smith, made the second attempt, and in I am making the third attempt, and in no case did either of my two predecessors consider or insert in their Bill a section to amend the law as suggested by these particular amendments. So far as I can recollect it was never even discussed despite the fact that those Bills had reached Committee Stage. Prior to the preparation and introduction of this Bill, I interviewed all the local authorities in this country, or rather their representatives. I put the specific question to 20 of them—did they wish to denude themselves of the sole—of that power which they had left of the appointment of rate collectors?
"Sole" is right.
It will not be "sole" when this Bill goes through. I put that question to representatives of 20 county councils and 17 of them begged me for God's sake not to denude them of that power. Only the representatives of three county councils asked me to take this power from them. There was a majority of 17 local authorities begging me to leave this power with them, this power of appointing their own rate collectors.
Would it be unfair to ask the Minister if he would give the names of the county councils if he is at liberty to do so?
I can do that for the Deputy but I am afraid I could not do it offhand. Possibly at a later stage I could do it.
I do not want the Minister to do so if he obtained the information in confidence.
I can assure the Deputy that I put that question to the representatives of 20 local authorities and 17 of them requested to be allowed to retain that power.
Would it be fair to ask to what extent the views expressed by the representatives of the local authority represented the local authorities' views in fact?
I may reply in this way—I take it the chairman is elected by the majority of the local authority representatives of the county council.
He might be drawn out of a hat.
That could be, but he usually represents the majority. The vice-chairman usually represents the minority. I think that is agreed and when I say I got the views of the local authority, I mean I got the views of the chairman and vice-chairman.
The personal views.
No, I asked them to give me the views of their local authority and remember this, some of them gave me the views of the local authority and said: "While those are the views we are asked to give you as spokesmen of the local council they are not our own views."
Might I point out in regard to that particular visit in the case of Donegal County Council, we as a council had at no stage an ample opportunity of discussing with or directing our representatives before the meeting as to what their predetermined answer to certain questions should be.
The Deputy is correct, but that is not my fault. I carried out the same procedure in the case of Donegal as I carried out in every other county, and I had the full co-operation of every other local authority. In the case of Donegal, I understand the chairman omitted to inform the vice-chairman of my proposed visit. I will go further—I discussed the objection Deputy Blaney has now mentioned and said: "I am prepared at a later date, and before I introduce the Bill, to have you discuss it and forward to me your representations." I must say there was a full discussion in Donegal County Council; they forwarded suggestions to me, and I accepted them in toto. I do not think it is fair for Deputy Blaney to suggest that I did not get the views, or that the views that I was given were not those of the local authority as a body.
Might I point this out?
Certainly.
The Minister has taken a wrong meaning from my remarks if he relates them to an unavoidable occurrence by which the vice-chairman was not invited to that meeting. My purpose was to point out that the Minister may have been given the members' personal views rather than the decided views of the council.
That was really the purpose of my question—that you claim to have been given the considered views of local bodies when you were really given personal views of the representatives, of the chairman or vice-chairman of these bodies and not the considered views of the council they represented.
So far as I understand I gave sufficient notice to each local authority of my proposed visit, and I requested them to call a meeting of their local authority and discuss the matter and let me have their views. I think those are the terms of the circular I sent out. I gave each and every local authority an opportunity of meeting and, through their chairman and vice-chairman, giving me the view of the majority. Deputy MacBride has put it to me that he would like to have the names of the counties in which——
But only if the Minister feels at liberty to give them.
I see no reason why I should not give them. The counties which suggested that there should be no change, and that they should retain the power of appointing rate collectors were—Wexford, Laois, Sligo, Waterford, Longford, Galway, Mayo, Cork, Carlow—that is the administrative area—Kilkenny, Monaghan, Louth, Meath, Tipperary (North Riding), Limerick, Offaly and Tipperary (South Riding). I am giving only the names of the counties which suggested there should be no change in the method of appointing rate collectors. There were a few counties which ignored the question such as County Donegal and made no recommendation whatsoever on that particular point and I am not including them. Neither am I including them as against the present system.
What are the ones against?
I will give them to you in a few moments. Those were the views expressed to me by the various local authorities and which I did consider. With regard to the first amendment, amendment No. 5, it is suggested by Deputies McQuillan and Sheldon that the appointment should be left to the Local Appointments Commissioners. If I may interrupt, here are the counties which voted against: Wicklow,——
They had no authority.
——Kerry and Donegal. But that was when I met the representatives of Donegal originally.
Speaking as one of the representatives of Wicklow County Council, previous to your visit we had no discussion whatsoever and I do not believe that view represents the feeling of the council. I believe the feeling of the council is that they should have the appointment of rate collectors.
With regard to that, I must, in fairness, say that Wicklow County Council was the very first council I visited and I am afraid they had no opportunity of even knowing what my visit was about. It was only when I explained to them and took them through the Act section by section that we came to a decision and with regard to taking them through the Act section by section, it may be we did not fully consider the section on rate collectors.
I am putting it this way—I want to be fair to the movers of the amendment—I am giving them the maximum number of counties that could possibly be said to be in favour, namely, three. I have no positive reply from Wicklow so I am putting it in that way that it is one of the "No's" but I am not holding that as being the expressed view. I am merely giving you what I found out.
Deputy McQuillan, in amendment No. 5, suggested that the matter should be left to the Local Appointments Commission. I think it is agreed that the Act of 1926 applied to the more important posts under local authorities. It was never intended to cover minor appointments such as this. That amendment as it stands would cover appointments down to the lowest appointment of rate collectors for the smallest urban area. In fairness to Deputy McQuillan, I think Deputy MacBride said that it possibly was loosely drafted but we will not discuss the drafting now; we will discuss the broad principle. Deputy MacBride, Deputy Tully and Deputy O'Connor have a similar amendment in amendment No. 6 but they go further and say that the Local Appointments Commission when making recommendations for the appointment of rate collector shall take into account local knowledge.
Yes, local knowledge.
Who will give them the local knowledge? Where will they get the local knowledge? Surely, the only place is from the county council and if the county council has to supply the local knowledge they must set up a priority list which they will forward to the Local Appointments Commission and if the Local Appointments Commissioners are to follow the priority list sent up by the local authority we are back to the very same position.
They could get it from the local Fine Gael executive.
In Mayo they might get it from Fianna Fáil and I am afraid they do.
They have a minority there.
We will leave it at that then. Then amendment No. 31 is an amendment in which there is a broad distinction as to who should appoint rate collectors. In that amendment, it is suggested that the powers should be taken out of the hands of the local authority and given to the county manager. There is a broad principle there. There is a big difference between that and amendments Nos. 5 and 6 and if I am pressed on that amendment I am prepared to leave it to a free vote of the House.
I have given the House, first of all, the views expressed to me by the local authorities and I am prepared to accept the views of this House by taking off the Party Whips and leaving it to a free vote but let us remember that in this Bill we set out to restore to the local authorities some of the powers of which they allege they were denuded by the introduction of the County Management Act and if we are going to restore some of the powers to them it is rather difficult to do it by taking from them this power they have of appointing rate collectors.
Deputy McQuillan would like the House to believe that local authorities spend their days wrangling over the appointment of rate collectors. On an average a local authority appoints a rate collector once every year. On an average all over the country a county council has the appointment only once per year of a rate collector.
It is once too often.
It is ridiculous to suggest that the entire time of the local authority is taken up in discussing the appointment once per year of a rate collector. It is just carrying it a little too far to make that suggestion.
Deputy MacBride referred to the receipt of letters by Deputies and he was certain that members of local authorities would also be inundated with letters canvassing their support for various applicants. Of course, Deputies are inundated with letters from their constituents and sometimes Ministers are inundated with letters, not from their constituents, but from Deputies.
I know.
But no person takes any exception to that. It is the duty of a Minister to reply to letters and it is the duty of a Deputy to write to Ministers because it is much better sometimes than interviewing because you have something concrete which you can pass on to your constituents. I do not think it would be a very strong argument against taking from a local authority the appointment of a rate collector.
I am inclined to agree with the Minister that amendment No. 5 is not exactly the best way to meet the difficulties some of us see in connection with the present method of appointing rate collectors and, as an alternative, I am sure a further amendment could be included, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, that is amendment No. 31, that instead of the appointment being made by the Local Appointments Commission it would be a function reserved to the county manager and this appointment in future would be made by a board set up within the county. That system is in operation at present for many appointments to officerships under a local authority and I see no reason why this type of board should not function in respect of the appointment of rate collectors.
The Minister more or less took me to task. I think he took me up wrongly. He suggested that I maintained that a considerable amount of the time of local authorities was taken up discussing the appointment of rate collectors. I did not say any such thing. I do not believe that much time is taken up. The actual appointment may not take much more than 20 minutes. It is the preliminaries that I am interested in, and they start about 12 months before the appointment is made. I know for a fact that in several counties, about 18 months before a rate collector is due to retire, potential candidates investigate his age to find out when he is due to retire. I see them doing that two years before the rate collector retires. From the moment they discover the date of his birth, they get into full stride and annoy and pester the county councillors and the relations of county councillors and their relations again.
Is not that what county councillors are for?
It is not what county councillors are for. Deputy Allen made a suggestion—I do not want to misrepresent him—that it was taking away one of the last functions of the county councils——
I said more than that.
——and that it would be wrong to deprive the county councils of the privilege of making these appointments. Have we reached the stage when the only prestige attaching to being a county councillor is the privilege of puffing out your chest as a local little commissar and saying: "I have a big say in the appointment of the rate collector"? Is it suggested that a man will offer his services on a public body for the purpose of setting himself up as a little local great fellow about whom the people of the locality may say: "He is a county councillor. He can do this, that and the other with regard to appointments"? I have seen this happening with regard to the preliminary canters, as I describe them.
Within the last few months Roscommon County Council had a meeting to strike the rate and every Deputy who is a member of a local authority knows, that is a very important day in the council as regards its functions. I met two gentlemen that morning on my way into the meeting and they said: "The big day is on to-day." I presumed they were talking about the striking of the rate and I was astonished to find out that what really was interesting the two was that two rate collectors were to be appointed on that day. That had been the subject of conversation for months in every farmhouse within the constituency concerned. It was discussed who the likely winners were to be in the coming derby of the rate collectors.
A great field day.
I want to get this cleared up once and for all. Deputy Allen and the other Deputies who spoke and supported him have produced no evidence in support of their contention that the present system should be retained. I do not want to be taken as casting any aspersions on the individuals already appointed; I am not interested in their politics but I can see no real argument against the suggested amendment that I am putting forward. All I want to ensure is that it is the most deserving and the most qualified people who will be appointed in the future. I am not saying a word against those who have been appointed but at times perhaps far more deserving candidates could be and should be appointed but they had not got the political influence necessary. Deputy Brennan was very fair about the whole thing but it is not quite as simple as he suggests.
Sometimes a candidate has come to me and I have asked him how he is getting on in his canvass. I have been told that he has interviewed various councillors and that some of the councillors had told him that they were not in a position to give any promises until their political Party had held a meeting. That meant that the Party meeting was the preliminary canter. It was the place in which it was decided what horses would get nominated in a particular area. As I have said that was the first gallop. When the candidate is selected by one Party his next step is to try to get the support of the other councillors belonging to other Parties. In the end he must have the support of at least three Parties— he must have a leg planted in each of three.
I want to get back again to the origin of the whole thing. When all other powers were being stripped of local authorities why was this function of the appointment of rate collectors left to them? So far I have not got any Deputy to answer that. Why was that particular power left to the local authorities? In dealing with amendment No. 5, I should like to ask the Minister why it became necessary in 1926 to bring in the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act?
Because of lack of suitable candidates in the locality—for lack of suitable candidates among doctors and engineers.
That would, of course, be part of the reason and I accept it as part of the reason. It was decided in the national interest that it would be the best system. Later, again, when the Managerial Act came in in 1940, powers that up to that had been fixed in the local authorities were stripped from them—the appointment, for instance, of tenants to council houses and so forth. These powers were taken but one power left was the power to appoint rate collectors and, seeing that the Minister was good enough to answer my question with regard to the 1926 Act, I will now ask him another: Why was it necessary in 1940 to leave this power to the local authorities?
Of course I cannot tell the Deputy what was in the mind of my predecessor but I understand the excuse offered—perhaps I should not say excuse; reason would be a better word—was that the local authority was responsible for striking the rate and that they should be given the opportunity of appointing the best men to collect the rates.
I must thank the Minister for his reply, but I am suggesting that in the visits he made to local authorities within the last 12 months he has not satisfied this House that he has got the actual views of the majority of the members of local authorities on this question. I am not criticising the Minister or his visits but he has made statements in the House with regard to various county councils and within a few moments Deputies have denied that these were the views of the particular local authorities in question. I am personally of the opinion that most Deputies will agree with me that the system I have outlined as having been in operation in my own and other counties is a wrong one and one which should be got over. Deputy MacCarthy has said that in Cork they were quite satisfied with the system as it operated there, and that in his opinion it should be adopted in Roscommon. I would like to assure Deputy MacCarthy that I tabled a motion in the Roscommon County Council three years ago and, in support of my motion, I got the necessary evidence from Kerry in order to convince the council. But I was beating the air.
That was democracy at work.
As Deputy Allen has said that is a form of democracy, but I believe that the Deputies here, including Deputy MacCarthy, will agree that the system as I have shown it is wrong. It is in order to remedy that wrong that I have tabled amendment No. 31. The question of giving power to local authorities is an important one. I think it was never envisaged that a local authority would be able to set itself up as a separate unit within the State and decide on itself to make appointments in this particular method while the council in the county beside it was entitled to adopt another method. I do not see why such scope should be left to local authorities at all. There may be individuals in the House to say it is extraordinary that when this Act is being brought in with the purpose of restoring some powers to local authorities there should be a motion such as this to take powers away.
I do not make any bones about it that I think personally this is a power that local authorities should not have; that there should be a decision on it either one way or the other. If the county councils are to have the power to appoint rate collectors why not also give them power to appoint tenants to houses, to appoint county managers, home assistance officers, and others? Give them the power to appoint every other official in the county as well as rate collectors. Why just give them this power to appoint rate collectors only? Be reasonable in your approach; give them all or take all from them. I should like to say that I am not interested in pushing amendment No. 5, but I would be interested if the House would accept the principle of it as I have tried to envisage in amendment No. 31. I understand we are discussing amendment No. 31 as well as amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
That is right. We are discussing amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 31.
It will save us discussing it at a later stage, and I should like to get the sympathy of the House to see that a fair system is put into operation in all counties for the appointment of rate collectors. Neither myself nor a few other individuals who are members of particular local authorities in Roscommon can persuade the other members to see our way of thinking and I would like that it would be made possible by this House that we would ensure that as far as the appointment of rate collectors is concerned that merit comes first and not the old idea that is abroad in people's mind at the present time, that the necessary qualification to secure appointment is not what you know but who you know and how well you know him.
If the Deputy wishes to press amendment No. 31, I would be prepared to leave it to a free vote.
I welcome the attitude of the Minister in this matter and I will certainly withdraw my amendment in favour of amendment No. 31 so that it can be left to a free vote of the House. I feel sorry, however, that when the matter is being left to a free vote so few members of the House have been present during the discussion to hear the arguments for and against. I hope, notwithstanding that, the House will be prepared to accept amendment No. 31.
During the course of this discussion, the Minister admitted what I suspected was, in fact, the position in so far as his tour through the country was concerned and his contacts during that tour with the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the different local bodies whose areas he visited. I suspected that in many of these cases he was really getting, not the view of the local authority or a majority view of that body but the personal opinion of the individuals whom he met. I would not have the slightest hesitation in saying, notwithstanding what has been said here, that if this matter were left to the decision of the members of county councils, they would naturally, and in my view rightly, by a majority decide in favour of retaining the powers which they now have.
May I interrupt the Deputy to say that the Cavan County Council held a special meeting prior to my visit to form their views on this?
We represent a very small area of the country. I am very sorry that is so because we always do things efficiently there.
That is what I was going to suggest. Every county had the same opportunities as the Deputy's.
I never expect the high standard from the others that we set ourselves.
I am inclined to agree, but that is not the only county.
Anyhow, I am thankful to the Minister for his generosity towards the area that naturally is the most important place in the world to me. At the same time he has interfered with my line of thought, if I really had any serious thought at all, so to that extent I am not a bit grateful to him. I said I would venture to guess what those local bodies by a majority would do and rightly do. Let me say more. When we of this Party were discussing the question as to whether this power should be left with local bodies, I happened to be at the time a member of a local body and as far as I can recall, my own view was against the decision that was made then. If I am convinced now that the course that was taken was right, it is because I have had a good deal of experience since then.
What I cannot understand on the part of some Deputies is this. They are greatly concerned about what members of county councils will do. They seem to regard them as a lot of irresponsibles. But let anyone here go into a council chamber, meet these men at a conference table or listen to them discussing the affairs of their area and he could not reasonably come forward here and show all this concern as to their incapacity to appoint a few rate collectors, as the Minister has stated, one each year for each county council in the country.
It is only a few weeks since the present Attorney-General, addressing a Fine Gael Convention in County Galway, drew attention to the fact that this piece of legislation was designed to give to local bodies a greater power. He expressed the hope, and he expressed not only the hope but the conviction, that as a result of the extension of the powers that were contained in this Bill, a better type, moryah, of representative or candidate would present himself to the electorate. You cannot merely talk this away by trying to anticipate the argument of those who are in favour of the present position. You cannot meet the case by saying: "I know you may charge me with criticising and complaining over the last nine, ten or 15 years because you have deprived members of local bodies of this power", You will say to me: "Those who were carrying on that campaign are now asking the Legislature to relieve the local body of the one substantial power they have." You just cannot justify the inconsistency you show by making that case.
When the present Attorney-General made these remarks at the meeting to which I have referred, he had in mind, of course, that judges are appointed on a political basis, that briefs are distributed on a political basis. There is no use in any member of this House, whether he is in Fianna Fáil or any other Party, pretending that the public cannot see this. When we stand up here and express our concern for democracy because of the way in which these powers will be abused by the elected members down the country, the people must say: "Surely they have their tongues in their cheeks," and they must have a good laugh at us.
Some Deputies here have suggested all kinds of methods by which these appointments could be made. Some of them do not look too kindly upon the machinery of the Local Appointments Commission, and not being satisfied with that machinery, some of them suggested that it should be some form of local committee, or some form of interview board.
It was on a previous stage of this measure that I made reference to the powers exercised by the managers all over the country in that regard, and I expressed my doubt and my fear and suspicion of that system, and I will express it again, because there are dangers in that system ten thousand times greater than the danger that a local body—a county council—might decide to appoint the son of a member of that body, or a brother of a member of that body. What is that system? Is it not the bringing together by some officials of a number of men within the area of the council itself or outside the area—in all cases mainly outside the area? Is it not apparent to any person who wants to look at the thing squarely that that system is full of dangers, and that the activities of secret societies and secret organisations of all kinds can come fully to play on it? As far as I am concerned, I would prefer a thousand times to have these minor appointments made by a free vote of the council, even though in a few cases they were not just perfect, rather than made by a type of machinery that some people seem to think might look well on the outside and which would be satisfactory to all concerned, and would be a source of protection to democracy. That is the very thing that would undermine it, that will produce a complete lack of confidence and trust. In fact, I would say, even the extent to which the power which managers have at the present time has been exercised through that system, has tended to shake considerably the confidence of many people who are watching it closely and intelligently.
As I say, when this proposal was first mooted I was not openly hostile to it. But when you give them that responsibility it is not out of the way to say: "Well, having given that responsibility we will allow you to devise the machinery by which you are going to collect rates". I did not intend to intervene in this discussion at all. My own mind was completely clear. As Deputy Allen and Deputy Brennan have said, it is natural, where members of a political Party have a majority, that majority will exercise its power. No matter how you appoint officials, are they not going to have political views anyhow? Take the Civil Service and the Local Appointments Commission. Did you ever hear of an official—I do not know of any— appointed through any machinery you may think of, who will not have a political view both before and after? What harm will it do him?
Deputy Allen said that the rate collectors do their work well. Deputy Brennan, from a different part of the country, said likewise. I come from more or less the same sort of area as Deputy Brennan. I have some experience of the work of rate collectors everywhere, and have met quite a few. I must speak of the general standard of intelligence and behaviour of these men from the point of view of appearance, conduct and capacity to do their work, irrespective of whether they were appointed because of a political ticket or not. They do their work well. The rates are brought in. If they do not take them in they pay the penalty. They have to provide an insurance bond. There is no danger to the local authority, no danger to anybody.
Here we are trying to pretend that we want everything raised above the political level. If the public could see those of us who are making that case they would know that we do not mean it, and that even in our own lives we do not mean it. I think if we gave, by example, more evidence of our support for that type of machinery, than by just a mere uttering of words in this House, it would be of far more benefit.
As the statements made by the Minister for Local Government, and the ex-Minister for Local Government, have thrown a completely new light on this discussion, I would like again to intervene in the debate. Deputies who have favoured the amendments have been indicted as having no faith in local authority representatives, and that they more or less regard those representatives as irresponsible people.
I have said no such thing.
That is, I admit, more an interpretation from the ex-Minister's statement than from yours. Let us examine the position. Deputy Smith has stated his faith and confidence in the elected representatives of the people. What did Deputy Smith and his Party do to uphold the assertion he has made to-night? Is it not true that the Party to which he belongs, Fianna Fáil, have robbed the elected representatives on local authorities of every piece of power, with the exception of the power of appointing a few political hangers-on in counties where they have majorities? Is that not the only function Fianna Fáil left the local authorities? Is it not true, also, that the reason they left that function to local authorities was that at the time the County Management Act was brought in, Fianna Fáil had a majority on almost every county council in the country? That was the reason this section was left in the Bill.
Deputy McQuillan wants to know why this particular section was left in the measure. I hold it was because of the pressure of Fianna Fáil Deputies who knew they had a majority vote on the county councils when this measure was brought into being in 1940. There is no use in Deputy Smith standing up in this House now and trying to make a case to uphold the rights of local authority representatives because a few years ago he had an opportunity, when he was Minister for Local Government, of bringing in a measure that would give back to local representatives the power, to which they are entitled, to direct policy. What, however, did he do? He brought in a penny-farthing City and County Management Bill and, while we are on this subject, I might say I would value the present Minister's measure at about twopence-halfpenny. That is not my opinion alone: it is the opinion of the general public.
I am very interested in the Deputy's amendments to the Bill.
A new field has been opened up here to-night as a result of the discussion of these amendments. In view of the statements by the present Minister and by the former Minister that they have great faith in the elected representatives on local authorities, what about scrapping this measure and bringing in some worth-while one to give back to these people the powers they are entitled to hold?
I invited amendments.
Great play has been made about the appointment of rate collectors. One of the strongest reasons why I support the amendment is that it would lead to the abolition of rate collectors, because in my view they are not necessary. In some counties, rates are collected through the office, as I have already stated, at not more than 40 to 45 per cent, of the present cost of collection.
We cannot discuss the abolition of rate collectors on this amendment.
With respect, I submit that every Deputy is entitled to give the reasons why he is opposed to a particular amendment.
The Deputy is giving reason as to why, in his opinion, there should not be any rate collectors.
I said that to support the amendment would lead us nearer to the abolition of rate collectors which, in my opinion, would be a good day's work for everybody and for the public purse, which we should be most concerned with. Deputy Smith has no such concern for the public purse. Possibly he has a majority on Cavan County Council and may be able to get a few of his henchmen or members of his family appointed rate collectors.
On a point of order. I submit that that is a most improper remark and that the Deputy should be made withdraw it. He has cast a serious reflection on the honour of a member of this House.
I will withdraw the remark. It is very difficult to understand the mentality of the Minister and of the former Minister. It amazes me to hear them say they have faith and belief in the integrity of local representatives——
Do not shake it, please. Do not try to shake it.
I wonder if it was within the past month or so that they found this new faith in local representatives? In my opinion, it must be. When Deputy Smith introduced his amendment to the City and County Management Act in 1954 he had no such belief because he stated here that he was not going to give them back any worth-while powers, good, bad or indifferent. He gave them no responsibility. It was specially set out in the measure which was introduced by Fianna Fáil and in the measure introduced by the present Minister for Local Government that no elected representative would have any say, good, bad or indifferent, in regard to the work of any employee of a local authority. It was made quite clear that a member of a county council, a corporation or an urban council could not question staff matters and could not question how employees of their council carried out their duties.
Why did the Deputy not put down an amendment?
Without wishing to be rude to the Minister, I should like to say that we treat this Bill with a certain amount of contempt. Fianna Fáil and, to put it bluntly, Fine Gael, agreed that the elected representatives on local authorities should have no say whatsoever on how the employees of local authorities carry out their duties but they make one exception, and that is where rate collectors are concerned. They are the only people in regard to whom they will allow the county councillors to have a say.
No matter what you may say to us, do not be so blunt with Fine Gael.
The Deputy is a blunt boyo himself. When I hear Deputy Smith, the former Minister for Local Government, craw-thumping in regard to this particular amendment I would refer him to the various statements he made on the integrity of members of local authorities. I would refer him to statements which he made on several occasions in this House in which he indicted them and in which he made it quite clear that he has no faith whatsoever in them.
The Deputy should give the House an example of where, on any occasion in this House, I did as he alleges.
Over several years.
I do not think that is fair, a Cheann Comhairle.
I am afraid it is politics.
I am not sensitive about politics, but this is a different thing altogether.
I am afraid it is in the essence of politics that one Deputy says one thing and another Deputy contradicts it flatly.
Deputy Murphy has said that I have repeatedly made certain statements about members of local bodies in this House. I have no recollection of making such statements or indictments. Is the Deputy not expected to give a reference when he makes such a charge?
He has given me nothing concrete to go on. He did not attempt to quote.
The charge, in my opinion, is quite correct.
Was it made in the House?
I must say it is the first time in my memory where, when a Deputy has made a charge as to statements by another member of this House and when he is asked to give a reference or else to withdraw the charge, it is not necessary to do so.
Deputy Smith is not correct there. There is nothing tangible, definite or concrete to go on. Deputy Murphy said that Deputy Smith has charged local authorities in regard to certain matters.
Deputy Murphy stated emphatically that when Deputy Smith was Minister for Local Government he indicated members of local authorities with regard to their integrity. In my view that is an unfair statement.
That is the Deputy's recollection.
That is what was said. Deputy Murphy used the word "integrity". I do not think he will dispute that. If Deputy Smith, the former Minister for Local Government, intimates that he wants either a quotation or a withdrawal of such a statement, surely he should have either the one or the other?
It is in the essence of politics that statements are made and contradicted.
I am not sensitive in that sense but I have been charged with having made statements in this House in regard to the integrity of members of local bodies. I have never made any such statement as that. The Deputy should be asked to withdraw the assertion or else to give a quotation.
I have had no definite statement from Deputy Murphy. I cannot ask him to withdraw what is a very general statement. There is no particular matter——
Suspicion haunts the guilty mind.
When addressing the House, Deputy Smith stated that in my itinerary round the country I merely obtained the views of individuals and not the views of local authorities. There are 27 county councils in this country and 19 of them held special meetings to provide me with recommendations for the amendment of the County Management Act. The following counties held special meetings and I received the recommendations—Donegal, Dublin, Wexford, Sligo, Waterford, Westmeath, Longford, Mayo, Cavan, Cork, Kerry, Kildare, Carlow, Kilkenny, Monaghan, Meath, Tipperary North Riding, Limerick, and Tipperary South Riding. In addition to that, I met a very large number of the members of the county councils in Leitrim, Laois and Roscommon.
Is the Minister suggesting he is adopting all the recommendations made?
I am not, but I am telling the Deputy and the House that I received recommendations, advice and counsel from these local authorities which I have just named and that I was not receiving advice, counsel or representations of individual members of them—and I would like that put on the record of the House.
At the risk of suffering the wrath of Deputy Smith, I wish to say I am entirely opposed to political appointments of any kind, whether they be High Court Judges or rate collectors. It has been my experience through various councils that it depends entirely on whether Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or Labour have the majority, as to who will be appointed rate collector. It is a terrible thing that a man is appointed because of his political ticket and not because he needs the job and is able to do it. We had an experience quite recently of one county where three rate collectors were being appointed and, as Deputy McQuillan mentioned, for months before the appointments were made there were midnight raids on the houses of all the county councillors.
Do we not do that in elections, do we not canvass for votes?
We do not. I am not quite aware of the way some of the Deputies opposite canvassed their votes but when I am a little longer in the House I will learn some of their methods. County councillors have been pestered by potential rate collectors and in many cases it is not the ideal person who is appointed. Deputy Smith says they do the job well. Of course they do. Their pay depends on whether they do it well or not. If they do not do it well—they are paid by poundage—they do not get their salary, so they must do it well.
That is the way with us all.
It is a pity that rate collectors are appointed by county councillors and that councillors are induced to vote for a particular candidate because of his Party affiliations instead of because he would make a good job of the appointment. It is a pity that the Minister, instead of taking off the Whips for the vote on this particular amendment, could not take the Whips off the political Parties in the counties when these appointments are being made—and then this amendment would not be necessary.
If I had my way, I would do that, too.
I had no intention of intervening in the debate on this amending Bill, as I have never been—and do not think now I ever will be—a member of a local body. Seeing that this is a free vote, we are now confronted—by the decision taken by Deputy McQuillan, to my surprise—with the simple issue of deciding by our free vote whether we are going to have rate collectors in the future appointed by the members of the local authority or by the county manager. That is the simple issue confronting us, through Deputy McQuillan selecting amendment No. 31 as the issue upon which this whole question should now be tested.
If, on a free vote of the House, amendment No. 31 is accepted in principle, is it possible that the Minister on the Report Stage would have a suitable amendment brought in, that would preclude the county manager from making the appointment directly, by setting up a suitable interview board?
I think that can be done by regulation.
Not being a member of a local authority, I have always listened to the members of local authorities whenever they came to discuss this particular matter. The Minister read out in the list of local authorities the two for my constituency. One of those two authorities, with all the members present, after due consideration, requested the Minister to allow them to retain their right to appoint rate collectors in the future as they have done in the past. I was one of the most attentive listeners to Deputy McQuillan when he was making the case for amendment No. 5 and I personally would take the risk of selecting, if I were a juryman on this matter, amendment No. 5 as much more suitable than the amendment No. 31 that he now relies on and asks us to vote on.
Looking at the whole position as a Deputy for 34 years, my whole attitude to the question of rate collectors has been this, that if I were a member of a local authority and free from Party affiliations to give a vote, I would look at the selection of a rate collector from the point of view of the suitability of the man and suitability of the man would depend upon his knowledge, his intimate knowledge, if necessary, of the people of the area. I have seen collectors act in the most callous fashion, without any consideration, at the wrong time, and hand their collection to the sheriff's bailiff to go and seize the property of decent ratepayers at a time when it should not be done—and, whenever it was done, done to the disadvantage of the individuals concerned. Any decent self-respecting rate collector who knew his job and who was a good man for the job would give due consideration to an appeal from a ratepayer for sufficient time to enable him to dispose of his live stock or other property in order to pay his rates before the end of the financial year or half-year as the case may be. That is the way the position should be looked at.
Having listened attentively to this discussion, I think that in present circumstances the members of a local authority, with their responsibility to the local ratepayers, are better judges of the most suitable man than a county manager who in nine cases out of ten or 19 cases out of 20 has no personal knowledge of the people of the county. The county manager is generally a man brought in from outside and in some cases, unfortunately, they have no experience in the working of local authorities. From my knowledge of the county councillors in the two counties in my own area, I would prefer at this stage—if there is a vote on it—to trust their judgment as councillors or the judgment of the members of the incoming council, to make the wiser selection, rather than hand over the power, as is now proposed by Deputy McQuillan, to the county manager to do that either on his own or by a selection board selected by himself.
Collection from the office is what we want.
That is another issue.
I was not able to follow the reasoning of Deputy Murphy when he seemed to infer that because councillors have not power in other ways this power should be taken from them also. It does not follow at all particularly if, as we are led to believe, there are some extra powers given to us in this Bill. Why should we sacrifice any of the powers we have enjoyed? I will be guided by one principle and I think every Deputy should apply it in his own case. If elected representatives of local bodies are not capable of simply appointing collectors, they are not capable of being members of a local body. They are not capable of discharging any of the duties pertaining to local bodies if they cannot trust themselves to take part in the simple selection of rate collectors. I am prepared to take responsibility for that and any other responsibility pertaining to membership of a local authority. If I felt afraid of myself and wanted to deprive myself of powers in relation to a simple matter like that, I would not offer myself to the people for election as a representative on a local body.
The appointment of rate collectors is a matter which is always very interesting to politicians. Not alone is it a great thing for a political Party in a local authority to get a henchman selected as rate collector, considering that he is paid, roughly, from 10d. to 1/- in the £ on his collection, but—and I know it from my own experience and to my regret in my native North Galway—the appointed rate collector also controls the register of electors, that is to say, he is the individual who goes around an area and is in a position to determine who has reached the age of 21 and should be on the register, and who had died and should be put off the register. The result in my constituency was that on a certain day a certain Party with a slender majority in my county council assembled behind closed doors at a caucus meeting and, as Deputy MacBride pointed out, there decided who the seven should be. I am delighted that Deputy Bartley is listening to me and I am sorry that Deputy Killilea is not in the House. There they decided who the seven should be.
Are you including Deputy Bartley in that?
I said I am glad that Deputy Bartley is listening to me.
Did you say that I was one of the seven?
I did not. I said I was sorry Deputy Killilea was not here because he was one of those who took part in the caucus meeting. Who did they turn out to be?
What about the paymasters?
I will deal with them, too. Quite a number happened to be brothers of local Fianna Fáil county councillors.
Tell us about the paymasters.
I am making my speech and it is something intelligent for those fellows to swallow. Others of them happened to be sons-in-law of some of these county councillors, but in any case the seven were seven Fianna Fáil touts. Wait until you see what they did. The compiling of the register in North Galway took place and, as the Minister well knows, there were over 2,000 people who were entitled to be on the register who were kept off it deliberately because they were supporters of mine and of my Party.
On a point of order——
I am not giving way. What is the point of order?
Deputy Bartley, on a point of order.
Disorder.
The Parliamentary Secretary has indicated seven rate collectors who can be identified and has charged them with keeping 2,000 people off the register of electors who were entitled by law to be on it. I want your ruling, Sir, on whether a statement of that sort is parliamentary or must be withdrawn.
Not alone do I make it in the privileged position I am in to-night, but I made it publicly at the count in Tuam where action could have been taken against me, if it was possible to do so.
The Parliamentary Secretary is not in order in discussing the duties of rate collectors. We are not concerned, in relation to these amendments, with the duties performed by rate collectors— the compiling of the register or any other type of work. We are only concerned with the amendment relating to the appointment of rate collectors.
With all due respect, Sir, the specific point I put is this: Is the Parliamentary Secretary entitled to make a charge, a criminal charge, against seven rate collectors who can be identified?
I made it outside publicly and I am now making it inside.
Mr. P. Brennan rose.
Would the Deputy please resume his seat? Since the councillors can be identified and since they are not here to defend themselves, the Parliamentary Secretary should make no such charge and the charge should be withdrawn unreservedly.
I seek the protection of the Chair.
Withdraw.
I will not. I always obey the Chair's ruling. Will the Chair tell me what I am to withdraw?
The Parliamentary Secretary has made a very serious charge against public representatives and these public representatives can be identified from the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the fact that none of them is here to defend himself, the charge should be withdrawn.
But the charge is the truth, Sir.
The Chair is not concerned with whether it it truth or otherwise. The charge should not be made, in the first place, and the Parliamentary Secretary should withdraw the statement he has made.
Would the Chair hear me on a point of order?
I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw the charge he has made.
Would the Chair just hear me on this point of order?
The Parliamentary Secretary has been asked to withdraw a charge he has made against seven public representatives.
You have asked him to withdraw on the basis that a charge was made against public representatives.
No, rate collectors.
No such charge was made.
Public officials.
In the interests of order and decorum in the House, the Parliamentary Secretary should give an example and withdraw the charge he has made.
Since I came into this House, I have always been guided in what I said by the Chair. I have made this statement outside. Some people often make statements when in a privileged position in this House, but what I said here I said publicly outside. It is the real truth, but at your request, Sir, being one of those who always believed in upholding the honour of the Parliament of this country, I will withdraw it, but nevertheless it is the truth.
That is not a withdrawal.
The Parliamentary Secretary on the amendments.
That is not a withdrawal.
I believe that rate collectors should not be appointed at all. I believe that rates can be collected and the rates at the moment are very high. The great trouble is that it is a key position for those people and that is the reason every politician is so interested in it. I suppose if we were all honest——
Like you.
Just as honest as you are.
That would not be hard.
I suppose if we were all honest about it and if Fianna Fáil had a majority in a council they would hate this amendment to go through and I suppose if any other Party had a political majority it would not suit them either. Is not that so?
We will have it after June, too.
Do not be too sure about that.
It is my honest opinion that the Minister should reconsider the position as regards this amendment. He should look into it again. There is too much politics played in councils. That is my honest view. I believe Fianna Fáil were responsible for that from the first day. I believe that the political rate collectors are the worst type that ever existed. The job of Fianna Fáil rate collectors is to put voters off the register and put some on that are for them as they tried to do in North Galway.
There are two points I want to get clear in my mind. One was raised by Deputy Smith and the other by the Minister. Deputy Smith stated he would like to see a free vote of the council exercised in connection with the making of an appointment of a rate collector. I see nothing wrong with that statement. If that is the Deputy's belief he is entitled to the democratic right of expressing that view by voting whatever way he feels like. The Minister emphasised on a number of occasions to-night the fact that he got the views of members of local authorities and that he is satisfied to adopt the views of those people with whom he had discussions. At the risk again of being misrepresented I suggest that members of local authorities may like to hold on to this power or privilege. The fact that they may like that power does not mean this House should decide to leave it to them. The fact is that these individuals of local authorities may not be right. I may not be right but at least I make my views clear. I am a member of a local authority and I am not afraid to make up my mind on a decision as to who I will support. I am personally convinced that the system in operation at the moment is not the correct or right one.
Since I am talking now as a member of a local authority, I do not think the views of the members of local authorities should be the final decider. It is not a question of taking away their democratic rights. On the question of Lenten restrictions the butchers are not consulted about regulations for the use of meat. We know perfectly well what they would do with regard to Lenten regulations.
I am giving you a free vote of the House.
I want to get this clear. The emphasis here is that the majority of the elected members of the local authorities want to hold on to that bit of power. I am not so much concerned with the actual members of the local authorities as the general public.
I am leaving it to the House and I will be guided by the House.
Before I forget it, I want to express my appreciation of the manner in which the Minister has met this amendment. He has taken the democratic step of leaving it to a free vote of the House. It is an awful pity that we could not have a good many more free votes in the House. I only wish that other Ministers would follow the example of the present Minister for Local Government.
Deputy Smith suggested he would like to see the appointment left to the free vote of the council. In other words, each councillor should be entitled to make up his own mind. No matter how much we may deny it in this House or outside I want to say publicly that very few councillors have the opportunity of making up their own minds. I think Deputy Allen will agree with me when I say that the northern end of my own constituency is 80 miles from the southern end and councillors in the south are not in a position to know the qualifications of the individuals in the north. I would say to Deputy Briscoe that they might be guided by the political friendship or association of the particular councillors in that area.
They will get the best advice that way.
They may from the point of view of the political party to which they belong. I am sorry this discussion has become rather acrimonious but it cleared the air from my point of view. A number of prominent members of this House who are also prominent members of local authorities seem to have the idea that it would be a terrible blow to the prestige of the local authorities if the power to appoint rate collectors was taken from them. I am not satisfied that would be the case at all.
Deputy Smith more or less suggested —I do not think he did it purposely— that some of us who spoke on these amendments have no confidence in our comrades or colleagues on the local bodies. I do not think that was a fair comment on his part. Neither do I agree with the suggestion he throws out—it was alleged to have been made by the present Attorney-General—that you are going to get a better type of councillor as a result of the amended legislation. I think the type of councillor will be the same all through. I am not saying a word against the type of councillor. The type I come across are 100 per cent. What I want to make sure of is that in respect of any human weakness there may be we will take the opportunity of ensuring that the councillor is not subjected to the tremendous pressure of friends and relations to force him to support a particular candidate.
The ex-Minister stated that he is rather uneasy about the system in operation with regard to managerial appointments. I quite agree. He is afraid that it is quite possible that the secret hand is there. We have secret organisations giving advice and working behind the scenes. We know also they work on the boards set up by county managers. They are also working on committees formed by county councillors.
They cannot break the political barrier.
The political barrier is broken. I saw myself in the past three months where an appointment was made in my own constituency. It was the secret hand that made the appointment. The hand of friendship was held out by two completely opposing groups to the complete mystification of all concerned and the worst possible candidate was selected.
Talk about political appointments now.
I am challenging Deputy Smith's statement about the secret society. I am dealing purely with that. If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that Section 50 is a more suitable one to accept I certainly do not see eye to eye with him on that. However, that is the democratic outlook and I regret the fact that the parliamentary Secretary, if this goes to a division, will not be with me; I will not have the privilege of having him on my side.
Am I right in assuming that the issue now before the House is whether rate collectors of the future will be appointed by members of the county council or by the county manager? Is that not the issue?
By the Local Appointments Commission.
Where an appointment is made at the moment to a vacancy in a county council it is done through an interview board. In other words, the county manager can make the appointment but he sets up an interview board and generally that board consists of local authority officials from other counties. That system may not be perfect, but it is the one I would like to see in operation in connection with the appointment of rate collectors.
If the amendments are carried we can by regulation set up that board. Is the Deputy withdrawing his amendment?
May I point out that we can have no decision on amendment No. 31 until we reach it in the ordinary way? The three amendments are being debated together to avoid duplication in debate.
I want to refer to the charges made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance against seven reputable public officials appointed by the Galway County Council by open vote of that council, every Party on that council voting for some of them so that if there is any charge leviable against these seven men, and if the Parliamentary Secretary wants to——
The Parliamentary Secretary withdrew any charges he made.
May I submit that no greater insult has ever been offered to the Chair than that same withdrawal; the Parliamentary Secretary said: "I withdraw at your request, but it is still true." No greater insult was ever offered to the Chair and I think the Parliamentary Secretary should withdraw that.
It is still true.
What about the judges?
Order! Deputy Bartley is in possession.
Deputy Coogan has not yet served his apprenticeship. If he would only have patience and serve his apprenticeship here as the rest of us have served it he might then be in a position to intervene. I want to defend my fellow Galwaymen who have been disgracefully attacked by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.
On a point of order. Is the Deputy within his rights in defending the good name of his fellow Galwaymen on the question as to how we should appoint rate collectors?
Deputy Bartley is referring to a charge made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance: That charge has been withdrawn and I can see no reason in discussing the matter further.
With all due respect, it was withdrawn in a very ciotógach manner.
What is called a parliamentary withdrawal.
It was not even that.
I noticed that last week a similar type of withdrawal was not accepted in Stormont.
I hope we will never descend to that stage.
Would Deputy Bartley now come to the amendments before the House?
I do not think good manners, even parliamentary manners, recognise any political boundaries. Good manners are pretty much the same in all Parliaments. I think I have indicated my view and, if the Parliamentary Secretary wishes, I will leave this matter of the appointment of these rate collectors.
I do not mind what the Deputy does about them.
What about the appointments on the Corrib of your henchmen?
Order!
All the water in the Corrib would not wash out some of those appointments. I think the Minister for Local Government is to be congratulated on the position on which he finds himself in relation to this Bill. Some of us commented on it adversely on the Second Stage in the light of certain public pronouncements by Government Ministers. One was a comment made by the Attorney-General when he indicated at a meeting in Sligo that decentralisation meant giving back powers to local authorities, powers which were now being operated by civil servants. In reply to a question last week I was told by the Taoiseach that the Minister for Local Government was to introduce a measure to restore democratic rights in respect of local government by amending the County Management Act and giving to local authorities a greater autonomy and effective power in local affairs. One or two members of the Labour Party have indicated in no uncertain terms what they think of the Minister's effort to restore these powers. Deputy M.P. Murphy said he had nothing but contempt for this measure; it was an insult in view of the promises made on the highest authority.
The Minister, as I say, is to be congratulated on the fact that, notwithstanding the milk and water nature of the measure, he has in fact some of the Parties supporting his Government asking him to take away some of the powers that the councils have at the moment. In all my life in Dáil Éireann I have never known such a Gilbertian situation to arise. I cannot for the life of me understand what Deputy McQuillan wants in his amendment.
I do not think it is sufficient to say that county councillors are pestered for 12 months before an appointment falls due. I do not think that is a sufficient reason for taking away this power from the county councils. It is a substantial reason, I suppose, but it is not substantial enough. I was a member of a county council in pre-managerial days. I was chairman of a finance committee. I have had practical experience of what it is to be a county councillor when all the powers now performed by managers and by a much increased staff of officials had to be performed by the elected representatives. It was the county councillors then who carried out all the functions that are now carried out by delegated authority.
The Deputy is not suggesting that as the reason why the powers were taken away.
Is the Deputy becoming facetious?
Deputy Bartley does not seem to understand my view at all.
On the authority of the Minister, I understand that county councils can appoint rate collectors by various methods. They can delegate the appointment to some other agency. Is that correct?
That is correct.
Is it not a strange request to ask Dáil Éireann to put a provision into a County Management Act asking that that discretion be removed from county councils and that these bodies should shed their power in that respect? Is it not sufficient to have the power in county councils to delegate the making of these appointments? If they feel unequal to making public appointments, what is simpler than to follow any of the procedures that have been set out by various Deputies? Deputy MacCarthy from Cork set out how it is done there and that method of dealing with the collection of rates is open at all times to all councils and I do not think any case at all has been made to ask the Minister to remove one very important power from councils in a measure which has been lauded for the past six or eight months as being one which was going to restore to councils the democratic rights that were taken from them in the Fianna Fáil Managerial Act.
The Minister can preen himself that he has the democratic Labour Party asking him to remove this right from the measure. As I say the request, coming as it has, from the smaller Parties, is in itself enough to make any sensible member of this House think twice about its merits. I think that the Minister should not have allowed a free vote on this measure, but apparently he is feeling satisfied that the amendment is going to be defeated; otherwise I could not see him taking the risk of allowing such an issue to go to a free vote. I am sure it is the first time——
You never got a free vote.
We never had a free vote and we never will have a free vote because we always face up to our responsibilities. It is only vacillating Parties and Deputies who seek these free votes.
I did not get a free vote on Youghal Bridge.
You should ask Deputy Smith about that.
I am sure this is going to be one of the rare occasions on which, under a coalition Government, a measure supported by Fianna Fáil will be carried.
The Deputy was not in the House for the past month, evidently.
The Minister knows quite well that if any members on those benches of the Clann na Poblachta, the Independents or the Labour Party put down a motion asking the Government to do something and the Government does not want to do it, on every occasion of that kind Fianna Fáil has it in its power, we are here in opposition and we have it in our power, to compel the proposer and seconder of that motion to withdraw it. Has it not happened?
I have accepted amendments from Deputy Briscoe without leaving it to a free vote.
The Minister knows we have it in our power to compel the withdrawal of any motion proposed from those benches. All we have to do is to say that we are accepting it and that we are going to vote for it and you will find it will disappear almost immediately.
You will not have that power much longer.
You were not here for the Local Government Bill.
Deputy Bartley must be allowed to speak.
I do not think I should delay the House any longer. I am not personally satisfied by the case put forward by the mover of any of these amendments—I understand there are three of them. I feel that we are, on this occasion, the only really convinced defenders in this House of democratic rights in this country.
I would not intervene on this were it not for the remarks of Deputy Bartley. It is unfortuate that we are travelling further away from the points mentioned here by the movers of these amendments. Let Deputy Bartley understand that we, as a small group, could have used our power to settle the thing in the county we come from. We refused to do that. We adopted a line there which we are adopting here in dealing with this amendment and the insinuations of Deputy Bartley will get us nowhere, because his own colleagues, Deputies Corry and MacCarthy, will admit openly and honestly, I know, that these were very far from our opinions when we were dealing with a problem just like this one here before us now. It was far from our views to use our power to decide who was going to get anything or what was going to be got. We approached it from the same common viewpoint as we are approaching this amendment to-night. We voted then in company with Fianna Fáil, and I had hoped that if there were to be a free vote—as we know now there will be— Deputy Bartley's colleagues from Cork would be in our company voting for the amendment. It would be but consistent to do here what we have been doing outside. It would surely be the height of political hypocrisy for us to express our views in one way down the country and come in here and say something different. If the views of my colleague Deputy M.P. Murphy, and my own views are something that others do not wish them to be—well and good.
I tried when speaking on this point at the start to explain that we can all have different problems in different counties. I did not go so far as to mention once my views about the political strength of Parties or the political aspirations of candidates applying for rate collectorships. All I want is to see the best possible system and in spite of the remarks of Deputy Bartley he can take it although we are a small group we are doing here what we have done outside and in supporting this amendment we are far more consistent than members who apparently voted outside otherwise than they are going to vote to-night here.
In approaching this amendment I should like to say one thing at the start—that we have examined this problem of rate collectors from all angles and some extraordinary things happen from time to time even in county councils as the Minister is probably aware.
Youghal Bridge for instance.
Yes, and Athlone Bridge, and the two of them will remain in the memory of the Youghal people when the Minister is far from there.
May I introduce the Liffey Bridge?
In dealing with this matter, I would like to point out that I am a member of a local authority for some 30 years now and one of the first jobs that we did as the old Sinn Féin Party in the Cork County Council was to bring in a standing order that all offices or emoluments in the gift of the county council would be filled by competitive examination. That disappeared out of the standing orders some ten or 12 years ago. Since then the appointment of rate collectors has been left to county councillors. I cannot see what all this controversy about the appointment of rate collectors means. A large proportion of the rates for Cork County are collected through the office, without any rate collector, at a cost of 3d. odd in the £ to the ratepayers and where rate collectors are operating we pay 7d. to 8d. to the rate collector. The particular concern of any county council or any county councillor should be to get the work done in the cheapest possible manner.
We are not discussing that to-night.
That does not arise on these amendments. What we are discussing is the method of appointing rate collectors.
I will say one thing about that, Sir, and I said it a long time ago, and the longer I am in public life the more I am convinced of it, that is, that the Local Appointments Commissioners, to whom it is proposed to send this thing, compared to the old rural councils would be only running a very tight second.
That amendment was withdrawn. We are discussing amendments Nos. 31 and 6.
Will somebody give me amendment No. 31 so that I can look at it?
That is what I suspected.
I would point out to the House that we are discussing amendments Nos. 5 and 31. I understand that amendment No. 6 is not being moved.
Amendment No. 6 is still before the House. It has not been withdrawn.
On a point of order. I understood at the time that we were to have a vote on amendment No. 31 and treat that as an issue. I understand that some Deputies would like to have a vote on amendment No. 5 or 6 also. I think we had better leave the two proposals. Whether it is No. 5 or 6 does not matter.
I do not want to mislead the Deputy. I undertook to leave amendment No. 31 to a free vote of the House. I am not giving that undertaking with regard to amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
And Deputy McQuillan accepted that.
I am quite satisfied with the Minister's statement. That does not mean that other Deputies may not wish to have a decision, irrespective of a free vote, on amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
As far as I can gather, the Minister does not know what we are discussing and I am the only one who knows what we are discussing.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 31 are being discussed together.
Discussion on all of them is in order. One proposal is to send the matter to one body; the second proposal is to send it to another body but I am in favour of keeping it at home as a last remnant of democracy left to us.
That is amendment No. 31.
No. Amendment No. 31 sends it to the county manager.
That is the alternative.
There is not a member of the 46 members of Cork County Council who will not say that we are pleased with the manager we got and even with such good managers as we have, knowing what happens from time to time, all we can say is that we pity the county that has not got the good managers that we have. Yet I would not be prepared, knowing what has happened and knowing the results of the selection boards and selection committees set up by managers to inquire into matters, Youghal bridge not excepted, to surrender any powers possessed by the county council.
Why did you not accept the decision on Youghal bridge?
I am rather surprised at the Minister. He came down the country and asked the councils "what do you want? I came here to increase your powers" and here there are amendments to reduce our powers.
I hope you will vote against them, if that is so.
I have a few jaw breakers to put to the Minister this evening that will keep him going another bit.
The Deputy and I are on the one team for a change.
I hope when I have shown the Minister the beauties of Lismore and the strip along by Cappoquin that he will become as generous as he was when he took the trip by Athlone.
The Deputy is wandering far from the amendment.
I think Deputy Corry is a bit of a hypocrite in what he tells us here and what he says in Cork.
The remark "hypocrite" should not be addressed to any Deputy. The Deputy will withdraw it.
I did not direct that remark directly to him. I said he was more or less acting in a hypocritical fashion.
The Deputy will withdraw the remark he made. I have asked the Deputy to withdraw the remark "hypocrite" he addressed to Deputy Corry.
I withdraw.
To be quite frank, I do not think I deserve that from Deputy Murphy. We tried all those things in Cork and, if I am not very much mistaken, the Deputy helped me, about six months ago, in getting rid of all this question of rate collectors, as far as Cork was concerned, and turning the collection over to the office. According as rate collectors retire, the areas go into the office for collection, with a consequent saving of 2½d. or 2¾d. in the £ to the ratepayers.
We agree with that principle. That is our line of argument.
Very well. These are proposals to take away a certain amount of power, even the power that we exercised when we turned rate collection over to the office because, and handing over that power to the Appointments Commissioners, about whom I was about to say, when I was interrupted by the Minister some few minutes ago, what I said many years ago when other Ministers were there, that, to my mind, they are as corrupt as the old rural councils. I have no hesitation in saying it. I always say in this House what I believe to be true and that is my opinion of the Appointments Commissioners, if he wants it. I do not know what particular organisation is running them now.
We are not discussing the personnel of the Appointments Commissioners.
On a point of order. Is it in order for the Deputy to refer to the Local Appointments Commissioners as a corrupt body. They are a statutory body of this House.
The Deputy should not refer to the Local Appointments Commissioners as corrupt.
He said they were as corrupt as the rural councils.
I take it the Deputy knows what the rural councils were. He has more knowledge of them than I have.
The argument put up here is that this matter should be referred——
Did the Deputy withdraw, on the point of order?
Did the Deputy withdraw the remark he made in reference to the Local Appointments Commissioners?
I am afraid the Minister did not get the remark properly.
I understood the Chair asked him to withdraw.
I asked the Deputy to withdraw.
I withdraw anything wrong I said. I move to report progress.
