I should like to refer to Section 17 as it will be now amended. I am not quite clear about the position and I should like the Minister again to refer to it when we move the Adjournment. I should like that the Minister would clarify the section as amended. First of all, in the City of Dublin we will have two permanent assistant managers, but it is not clear under Section 17 if it is intended to confer managerial status on other officers and if so how these officers are to carry out their new duties, particularly in view of sub-section (4) whch provides that the approved officer is liable for surcharge as well as the manager. I wonder if I am misreading the section. It certainly is not clear to me. What I want the Minister to answer is this: Is he confining the activities that are referred to in Section 17 to the assistant managers or is he permitting the appointment of other officers by the manager in certain cases? I wonder if the Minister would let me know that.
Financial Resolutions. - City and County Management (Amendment) Bill, 1954—Committee Stage (Resumed).
The Deputy will understand that the general principle of the section is to ensure the continuity of ultimate responsibility for the manager. That is the general principle in the section and the amendment—to have some continuity of responsibility—and of course that must be vested in the manager.
Then the manager may appoint an officer who is not an assistant manager?
Certainly.
I move amendment No. 28:—
Before sub-section (8), page 15, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(8) Where a delegation to a Dublin assistant city manager or assistant county manager (in this sub-section referred to as the officer) is made under Section 13 of the Act of 1940, the following provisions shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in that section—
(a) the manager may, in any particular case of the performance of the function, inform the officer that he has decided to perform the function himself, and the function shall thereupon be performable in such case by the manager and not by the officer, and, for the purposes of such performance, the substitution specified in paragraph (c) of sub-section (4) of the said Section 13 shall be deemed not to have been made.
(b) if the officer is satisfied that, in any particular case of the performance of the function, performance would, on account of the importance of the decision involved or on account of any other reasonable consideration, be more appropriately effected by the manager, the officer may refer such case to the manager, and the function shall thereupon be performable in such case by the manager and not by the officer, and, for the purposes of such performance, the substitution specified in paragraph (c) of sub-section (4) of the said Section 13 shall be deemed not to have been made.
We agreed to take both this amendment and amendment No. 27 together.
I should like to make a verbal alteration to amendment No. 28. I should like to add the words "to an" after the words "Where a delegation to a Dublin assistant manager or" and before "assistant county manager" in sub-section (8).
I move amendment No. 29:—
In sub-section (1) to delete paragraph (a), lines 5 to 10, inclusive, and substitute the following:—
(a) Immediately following the election of the council of a local authority and at the first meeting of such council, the manager shall submit to the council for their approval the name of the person he proposes to appoint to act as his deputy on such occasions when he is unable for any reason to discharge the duties of his office.
There should not be any great difficulty about this amendment. The general experience has been that after an election it is usually not known to the members of a local authority who is to act as deputy for a manager during a particular period of sickness or holidays. They do not know what is going on and there have been occasions where certain orders made by a deputy manager have come to the notice of the members only nine months after they have been made and the members do not know who has made them. That could happen quite often in cases where the manager would be on holidays or on sick leave, and I think there should be some provision made in the Bill whereby the members would be informed who would act for a manager on occasions of sickness or holidays. That is the idea of this amendment.
I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the Deputy's point of view, but under the information section of the Bill the chairman or council, by a simple majority, may request the manager to give this information, and I think that might meet the Deputy's point. The manager would be bound to give the name of the deputy he proposes appointing.
I know that but it reminds me of the radio talk "Information, Please." I do not know why council members should have to ask for this information. I think there should be provision made in the Bill whereby council members would not have to seek that information. The manager should be in a position to tell the members of a local authority who his deputy will be.
The Deputy will appreciate that a manager may change his mind about who his deputy is likely to be. The Deputy can visualise a situation in which a council holds its first meeting and at which time the manager may have an official in his mind whom he would like to appoint but during the year the conduct of that deputy might be such as to cause the manager to change his mind about his appointment. I can assure the Deputy that he has power, as a member of a local authority, to demand the name of any deputy whom the manager proposes appointing and he could go further under the requisition section and say that every six months the manager should submit the name of the deputy he proposes appointing in the event of a deputy being required. I think that should meet the case.
I do not think so. When the Act is in operation there may be instances like those of which Deputy McGrath and myself are aware where we had cases in Cork and probably in other counties under which orders were made and where the members of a council inquired about something about which they did not agree and it was three or four months afterwards before they found out who had made the orders. The Minister may say that we may ask for that information but I think that would not prevent the manager from changing his mind. Under Section 4, the manager could come along and say that while he intended appointing a certain official to act as deputy he had changed his mind because of the unsuitability of that official.
I do not see why the Minister could not give the added protection necessary in this section in order to guarantee continuity. If the person who is named, for instance, falls ill something will have to be done. Continuity is very important. That is why we are so anxious to ensure that there will be continuity and that the members will know who will act as manager should the county manager be called away or be absent for any other reason.
I appreciate what Deputy Desmond is trying to bring about by this amendment. There is a slight difference between the City and the County of Dublin, I admit, though the circumstances are not entirely dissimilar. In Dublin the position will be that the manager may consult the Lord Mayor, if he is going away, in connection with the appointment of a deputy. It does not follow that if the Lord Mayor disagrees——
Perhaps it will shorten the matter if I say I am prepared to consider the position between now and the Report Stage.
Would the Minister safeguard the position in Dublin?
This will be of general application. It will apply to every local authority. I realise there is a good deal in it and I am prepared to consider it between now and the Report Stage.
We have two assistant managers in the City of Dublin. Under the Bill as it stands, the city manager, if he is going away, will appoint a deputy. He will consult the Lord Mayor. The Lord Mayor may not agree but, notwithstanding that, the city manager can go ahead and appoint his deputy. That is unsatisfactory.
But that is not the purpose of this amendment.
No, but the amendment would cover the position. I do not know whether Deputy Desmond appreciates that the Minister has an overriding power over the manager's nomination. The manager may suggest his deputy and the Minister may not approve of that suggestion. In that event the position is not protected. I think Deputy Desmond wants to have the name of the deputy known; that will be acceptable to the council, and it should be acceptable to the Minister. If the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment, he should accept it in the fullest sense of what Deputy Desmond has in mind and not leave the position such that, having passed this amendment, we may subsequently find ourselves out of court because the Minister may disagree with the manager's nomination. The amendment should be drafted to make the position absolutely clear and to give the continuity that is asked for. If the Minister accepts that——
I am not accepting anything, but I have said I will consider the matter carefully between now and the Report Stage.
If Deputy Desmond withdraws his amendment, the Minister having agreed to bring in an amendment to meet the situation, and it is subsequently found that the Minister's amendment does not cover the position, what will the situation be then?
Deputy Desmond has clearly indicated that what he wants to know in advance is the name of the deputy. Unfortunately, he has gone somewhat further than that in his amendment: he wants the name of the deputy not only given in advance but also submitted to the local authority for their approval.
And he wants the Minister to accept it.
I am prepared to go this far with the Deputy: he should know in advance the name of the deputy.
May I say I took that for granted? I am assuming that the manager will appoint as his deputy someone who is thoroughly competent and that the members in their wisdom, realising the competence of the official so appointed, will agree.
There would be no necessity to submit the name. It would merely be a case of letting them know in advance. I am prepared to amend the section to that extent on the Report Stage.
I am not disputing that the Minister should have an overriding power and control. I am asking that the manager should nominate his man to the council, the council should approve and the nomination should then be forwarded to the Minister for the Minister's approval.
There is no law whereby the council must approve.
But the Minister is going to make the position so.
I am not, and Deputy Desmond did not ask me to do that.
Deputy Desmond wants the name of the deputy who will act as manager in the absence of the manager submitted to the council, and he wants that agreed in advance.
We only want the name.
The Minister says that is no guarantee that he will be accepted. The Minister may not approve of the manager's nomination, or the council's approval of it. That is what I want to get Deputy Desmond to understand. I hold there should be some addition to the amendment whereby, since the Minister has that overriding power, he should exercise it then and, if there is any dispute, that dispute should be resolved long before the necessity arises for the deputy to take over. That problem might arise at a time when the council might be faced with a very critical situation, and it would be better to know in advance. In the case of Dublin we have two assistant city managers. The Minister might say that we could appoint either. The manager could then go to the Lord Mayor and propose his deputy. The Lord Mayor might agree on behalf of the council, but the Minister might not approve. It would be very unsatisfactory if an incomplete amendment is accepted now. I appeal to the Minister to make the situation absolutely watertight.
I appeal to the Minister to untangle this. It is more complicated than I thought. I do not see what the difficulty would be if, say, after the local elections the manager names a certain official as his deputy. Now, in 12 months' time that deputy may have left; it would naturally be the duty of the manager then to inform the Minister of that fact and appoint another deputy to act for him.
I accept that.
Deputy McGrath is familiar with the point I am making. If members of the council do not know who the deputy is they may have difficulty in the absence of the manager.
I accept that and I will bring an amendment in.
If this deputy is not required to act for 12 months and the council and the manager have agreed——
The council have no right whatsoever to be consulted.
——and that name is not sanctioned by the Minister when the time comes for him to act maybe in 12 months' time if the Minister then comes along and says: "Well, I will not have him, he is not suitable," what will the position be? What Deputy Briscoe suggests is that when the manager selects his deputy and informs the council that name should be submitted——
That is a matter for the manager.
But what Deputy Briscoe suggested is that the name should be submitted when he is appointed, not when he comes to act, maybe in 12 months' time.
Is the Minister accepting?
If the Deputy refers to Section 18, sub-section 2 (a) he will find that covered.
On the section. I was going through this bit by bit. All these deal with different persons and in Dublin we were hoping that when the next appointment of manager is made it will be a manager exclusive to the City of Dublin. Does this end the dual assistant managerships? I do not understand what (2) means. The assistant manager, I think, is in the county and is not acting in the city at all and it is now proposed to make him a permanent Dublin City Assistant Manager. I cannot understand that. This is an assistant manager who is operating in an adjacent territory and, in my opinion, anyway, might easily become promoted as a candidate for the managership of the county, but why he should be a permanent assistant city manager when we already have two—perhaps the Minister would explain that to me?
Is the Deputy referring to sub-section (3)?
Sub-section (3)? Then, it is a different person.
I know it is.
We are dealing with different persons and areas. I dealt with this question about the appointment of our housing director on a previous occasion. I accept the position of sub-section (1). Mr. Keane is and has been a Dublin Assistant City Manager for a number of years and we are all glad to see that the Act is making provision to make him a permanent assistant city manager. The Lord Mayor will, I believe, help me out there.
We are 100 per cent. with Mr. Keane.
But then, we come along and we are appointing another assistant city manager who is not in the employment of Dublin Corporation at all.
The Deputy will appreciate that as soon as we de-group, all these titles will be changed.
I do not know that that is fair. I do not think it is fair to tack on to us in the City of Dublin——
Section 14 of the Bill provides for it.
Where does it provide? This is a very long section—perhaps the Minister would tell me where does that bring the assistant county manager into the City of Dublin? I do not understand this.
I think it is the opposite of what the Deputy has said.
I want the Minister to be patient with me and let me understand what is being done.
Look at sub-section 6:—
"On the commencement of an Order under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of this Act, Eugene O'Keeffe, if immediately before such commencement he held the office of Dublin Assistant City Manager, shall become by virtue of this section the manager for the County of Dublin."
I am not a lawyer and I do not think the Lord Mayor is a lawyer. On the one hand, under sub-section (2) we create a new permanent city manager for the City of Dublin by bringing in an assistant manager from County Dublin and we are told that we are entitled and justified in doing that, because if an application is made to separate the two areas and if the Minister grants it under certain circumstances after consultation with his colleagues, then this man will become manager for the county—for the separated area. But there is no guarantee in this Bill that the Minister will grant the request for the separation of the areas. There is no undertaking by the Minister that he must do that. He gives an undertaking in the Bill that he will consider it. He will consult with other Ministers concerned, such as the Minister for Health, and then he may, if he likes, grant this separation, but meanwhile we have made an individual who is not an officer of the Dublin Corporation——
Mr. O'Keeffe is at the moment temporary assistant city and county manager—that is his title.
That is his title, but the Minister will admit that this particular officer——
I am not going to discuss the merits of a particular officer. It would not be fair to do so in this House.
I am not discussing the merits of the individual. The Minister has no right to suggest that I intended doing that. I am keeping away from personalities. What I am concerned with is that an officer who is not an officer of the City of Dublin is now being made a permanent Assistant Dublin City Manager whether he is a temporary one in his title or not. He certainly has been acting for a great number of years as assistant county manager, and I want to tell the Minister now that unless there is some guarantee given that there will be a separation of the areas and that then this officer will go out to the county as manager in a certain eventuality, I am not going to allow this particular section through altogether.
I do not know what my colleague, Deputy A. Byrne, feels about it, but it seems rather strange that—over the wishes of the local authority, over the wishes of the Local Appointments Commission, that we have heard so much about—we inscribe in an Act of Parliament a permanent office to an officer whom we may afterwards have to take into our employment if the situation does not develop of the separation of the areas. Sub-section (3) of this Section 22 provides:—
"Immediately before the commencement of an Order under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of this Act, Timothy O'Mahony, if then holding the office of assistant county manager for the County of Dublin, shall cease to hold that office, but such cesser shall not qualify him for any superannuation allowance, gratuity or like benefit."
I do not know what that means. If the suggestion was that Timothy O'Mahony was to become a permanent assistant city manager of the City of Dublin we have no quarrel because this is an officer who is serving the corporation. We know him. We are satisfied with the big job he is doing. But he is not getting a permanent position. If Timothy O'Mahony was provided for in sub-section (2) we would have no quarrel because he is one of our assistant city managers. I do not know what happens. It is so confused. We bring Mr. Keane back again and the sub-section deals with his superannuation, gratuity, and so forth.
Sub-section (5) provides for Mr. O'Keeffe and so does sub-section (6). I do not object to the Minister's making Mr. O'Keeffe permanent assistant county manager. I have no objection to that at all and I do not think the county people have an objection to it. At the moment, we have a very serious matter going on between the county and ourselves. We took in 6,000 acres of county property to make what we call the added area of the City of Dublin. City of Dublin officials are negotiating with County Dublin officials as to what compensation the City of Dublin will have to make the county for the increased burden on the ratepayers as a result of the loss of their property. The county manager, who is county manager of both areas, has to keep out of it because there is a conflict and he cannot agree with both. The negotiations are being conducted by Mr. O'Keeffe as assistant county manager on behalf of the county with our people. Now we are going to make him a permanent assistant city manager.
What confidence can we have in a situation where a man who is at present the assistant county manager and who is acting in the best interests of the county residents and ratepayers is now to become our assistant city manager? I think the whole thing is becoming ludicrous. I ask the Minister if he will agree to make the change and make Mr. O'Keeffe permanent assistant county manager. Why bring him in to us? If he is appointed under this provision and if he retires then his superannuation will be on the backs of the Dublin City ratepayers—the superannuation of a man who is serving for another area altogether. Surely Deputy A. Byrne understands the point I am making and perhaps he will help me in asking the Minister to make the change.
I lost all interest in this Bill when, at the beginning, we failed to get our own town clerk and clerk of the council. I have not studied the Bill since. Our clerk of the council was treated badly.
I think, in fairness to Deputy Briscoe, I should refer to this matter. He may be under a genuine misapprehension.
Apparently I am.
There is no intention whatsoever of bringing Mr. O'Keeffe into the city administration. Sub-section (2), which reads as follows——
"If, immediately before the commencement of this section, Eugene O'Keeffe was a temporary Dublin Assistant City Manager, he shall become by virtue of this sub-section a permanent Dublin Assistant City Manager."
—was so drafted because Section 10 (2) of the Act of 1940 provides:—
"(2) Every office of Dublin Assistant County Manager shall always be held by the same person as holds the corresponding office of Dublin Assistant City Manager."
There is no intention whatsoever of bringing him into the city administration.
If we have a guarantee that there will be a degrouping, I have no quarrel. The Minister reads out a sub-section from a section of the Act of 1940 but Mr. O'Keeffe was not then under it.
I must give him the title.
It dealt with the grouping under the manager of the city that took over these other areas. The city manager was, first of all the city manager. In addition, he was Dún Laoghaire Borough Manager and county manager as well. With regard to the assistant managers of the City of Dublin and other officials in those areas, there was a whole lot of changing and swopping around. I think Mr. O'Keeffe came from Donegal.
That is to his credit.
The Minister should not try to push me into an argument about personalities. I am only trying to point to the silly situation. A man who was secretary of the Donegal County Council was brought down to Dublin and made assistant county manager.
I wish to goodness you would get some of your Dublin men out of Donegal. We would be much better off.
I do not know that there is a Dublin man in Donegal. I do not know that they go there. I do not know whether or not Mr. O'Keeffe is from Dublin or Donegal but the fact remains that he was secretary to the Donegal County Council.
And to the Dublin County Council.
First of all, he was promoted from County Donegal to become secretary——
Was it promotion?
Call it anything you like. He was moved, shifted, kicked out of Donegal, if you like, into the secretaryship of County Dublin.
Deputy J. Brennan is sitting beside you.
The Minister is beside you.
I know that the Deputy is under a misapprehension in this matter. May I refer him to subparagraph (a) of sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the County Management Act of 1940 Incidentally, this was not brought in by me. It reads:—
"(a) If the county secretary of the County of Dublin is a candidate and suitable, the said commissioners shall recommend such county secretary."
They shall recommend him to the position of assistant manager.
That was not about Mr. O'Keeffe. He was in Donegal in 1940.
He was not. In 1940 he was serving his country as an officer in the Irish Army.
He was not in County Dublin.
But he later did become secretary here.
That makes it all the worse.
I am trying to clear up a misapprehension.
Whether or not it is a misapprehension, I strongly oppose making assistant city manager a man who has never served in the Dublin Corporation.
I have no option.
The Minister has all the options he likes to take into his hands. He can amend.
You passed the Act of 1940.
The Minister is amending Acts.
You did not put down any amendment to this.
I put down a few amendments for Report Stage. The Minister knows that already, I am sure. I make a present of this to the Minister; none of us is prepared to say that those who framed the managerial Acts or those who supported them believed they were perfect. They always believed that the managerial system was on trial, that it was in an experimental stage and that it was only by experience in the Department and on local authorities that we could get to a stage where we could bring about gradual improvements towards perfection in the system. I make a present of that to the Minister. So that, when the Minister says that we did this or we did that, I say: "All right. There were many mistakes made."
I tell the Deputy now that I am not bringing Mr. O'Keeffe into this city administration. Is that fair enough? Mr. O'Keeffe is not coming in.
The Minister has read for me a certain sub-section of Section 10 of the Act of 1940. May I throw this back at him—using the phrase as a figure of speech? Sub-section (5) of Section 10 says:—
"In relation to the first appointment to one, but only one, of the offices of Dublin Assistant City Manager (not being the office mentioned in the next preceding sub-section of this section, if the appointments mentioned in that sub-section take effect) the following provisions, in so far as they are applicable, shall apply and have effect in regard to the selection by the Local Appointments Commissioners of a person to be recommended by them for such appointment, that is to say:—
(a) if the county secretary of the County of Dublin is a candidate and suitable, the said commissioners shall recommend such county secretary;"
That is in relation to the first appointment.
It only relates to the first appointment.
That is all. There was never a second one made.
It was only for the purpose of getting him there.
Yes, and we never had another case since.
I know, but what I am talking about is that it did not say in Section 10 of the 1940 Act that the next step after that was that he became a servant or official of the city administration.
He is not becoming one. I can assure the Deputy of that. I must give him that title but he will not have anything to do with the administration of the City of Dublin.
And the City of Dublin will not be responsible for any pension or superannuation?
No, but I must give him the title laid down in the 1940 Act.
Although the Minister admits that it is all wrong, that it is all nonsense?
I do not admit it at all.
Then the Minister is standing over it?
The Deputy is not cross-examining me. He may be Hallsbury, if he wishes, but he is not cross-examining me.
The Minister will not get me into a bad humour.
I have done my best. I can assure the Deputy that he has done it with me many times.
No. We are both good humoured men.
Accept the Minister's assurance.
I gave the assurance that Mr. O'Keeffe will not be responsible for the administration of the City of Dublin in any way. I must give him the title of assistant city manager because I am bound to do so under the 1940 Act, although in fact he will be attached to the County of Dublin, but I must give him that title.
If the Minister will give us the assurance that he is going to separate the areas I will be much happier because it is a somewhat bigger thing. I am accepting the Minister's explanation but I want to understand it. I want to get on the records the interpretation of the position. Will the Minister be good enough to explain sub-section (5) of Section 22 and its practical application? What does it really mean?
You would have to take (5) and (6) together:—
"(5) Immediately before the commencement of an Order under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of this Act, Eugene O'Keeffe, if then holding the office of Dublin Assistant City Manager shall cease to hold both that office and the office of assistant manager for the County of Dublin, but such cesser shall not qualify him for any superannuation allowance, gratuity or like benefit."
That is quite clear, if the Deputy will refer there to the title which he has got—"holding the office of Dublin Assistant City Manager shall cease to hold such office and the office of Assistant Manager for the County of Dublin." He is Assistant Manager for the City and County of Dublin. That is his official title and if he shall cease to hold that office, "such cesser shall not qualify him for any superannuation allowance, gratuity or like benefit." Sub-section (6) says:—
"(6) On the commencement of an Order under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of this Act, Eugene O'Keeffe, if immediately before such commencement he held the office of Dublin Assistant City Manager shall become by virtue of this section the Manager for the County of Dublin."
I think really there should have been added to that, when he holds the office of Dublin Assistant City Manager he automatically becomes assistant county manager but, as I said before, the fact that he is Dublin City Assistant Manager is merely a title but he does not intervene in the administration of the City of Dublin.
The Minister agrees with me because he has just let it drop. Why not call him Dublin Assistant County and City Manager? The Minister let it drop.
Although it is not written in, that is the exact significance of it.
It is easy to amend that Act and change the title.
Now that this Dublin affair is apparently near completion——
It is not near completion.
This aspect of it apparently is. I would like to draw attention to sub-section (1). I do not know the gentleman. I have nothing for or against him. It states there:—
"If, immediately before the commencement of this section, John P. Keane was a temporary Dublin Assistant City Manager, he shall become by virtue of this sub-section a permanent Dublin Assistant City Manager."
May I ask the Minister why should this have been confined to Dublin? I think the Minister is aware that the same position arises in Cork. Why should it be that the law as made in 1955 should apply in Dublin and not in Cork? I would like the Minister's view on that.
Mr. John P. Keane has been a deputy manager of this city for a good many years and owing to the expansion of the City of Dublin and the extension of the social services and amenities I consider that, as he has been a deputy manager for many years, he should now become a permanent assistant city manager.
Yes, but if you do that in Dublin—and I give the Minister credit for doing it—why is it that a similar provision does not apply in Cork? I am anxious to have this matter cleared up. In Cork, an official of outstanding merit over many years' service is being denied what is being given in Dublin. I have approached nobody about this. It seems, in local government, when we come across officials with whom we are all satisfied —I mean all Parties—and when we are satisfied that that official is highly competent in the administration of the local authority, all that is to be ignored and there is to be favouritism —to which I am not objecting—and a certain concession is offered in Dublin and denied in Cork. I would like the Minister to have that clarified before we go further.
I understand that the gentleman the Deputy refers to in Cork is only there about eight months.
The Minister knows, and I am sure his officials could check in the Department, that this official— he has not asked me to mention this one way or the other and has not discussed it with me; I am doing it in my own good faith — has been acting in such capacity for many years back. If the Minister will read an amendment tabled by Deputy Corry — Deputy MacCarthy can bear me out, I think— it is quite clear that this person has been carrying on duty over a period of years.
I understand the county manager down there has made application to the Local Appointments Commission to have this position filled and, of course, that being so, I cannot step in.
I would like to have this matter cleared up between now and the Report Stage. When did the county manager do that?
I understand it was done on two occasions recently.
I intend to follow this up on the Report Stage. In view of the fact that this has been done for Dublin, we in Cork are entitled to the same concession provided the official concerned gives the service for which he is paid and, in fairness to this official, I will say he has given excellent service.
I am sorry to be intervening again but the Minister has made the position worse by his last intervention. The Minister justifies the permanent appointment of Mr. Keane because of the services he has rendered, with which nobody quarrels, and because of the additional works, the growth of the city and also the social services in it. Then in connection with Mr. O'Keeffe he says that according to the Act of 1940, he had to be appointed as assistant county manager. Why is it that in the case of Timothy O'Mahony who is described as holding the office of assistant county manager for the County of Dublin, there is no description whatsoever of him as an assistant city manager while the man who is not in the city at all is described as the assistant city manager. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could give us an answer to that but we must have some explanation other than what has been given.
I think the Minister has gone out of his way repeatedly to try and explain that.
The Minister will appreciate there seems to be some peculiar situation that certain officers who are in fact assistant city managers and who are so described will be made permanent and that in connection with an assistant county manager who is now to be a permanent assistant city manager he has to have that description because of the 1940 Act. How is it then that Timothy O'Mahony who is in fact acting in the city as an assistant city manager bears no such description in the Act but is described as an assistant county manager? It is difficult enough to understand local authority legislation and to interpret it without having such a situation where you have something that is black described as white and something that is white for the purposes of the Act described as black. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that because I am in complete confusion about it.
I have a very definite objection to legislation being brought into the Dáil for the City and County of Dublin which does not apply to other counties. We have individual names here and apparently nobody thinks of an officer as operating unless he has served in Dublin. We have an assistant county manager at present operating in Cork since as far back as 1942-43. I do not see his name mentioned here to be appointed as assistant county manager.
I am not saying this in any disrespectful way but the Minister explained that before the Deputy came in and he will see it on the record.
The Minister said he was eight months acting.
I query that immediately. He has acted practically every year since 1942/43. Again he acted in 1946/47 and every year since then up to the present day. As a matter of fact he has acted nine full months last year, as I have reason to know, and he is at present acting assistant county manager. Surely if he is considered competent to act every year since 1942/43 as an assistant county manager he should be competent now to be appointed in a permanent capacity. I think it is ridiculous to select certain individuals just because they happen to be in Dublin and include them in a special Act of Parliament. I see no sane reason why this person's name should not be in this Bill and I suggest that the Minister should amend it on the Report Stage.
The Minister answered that.
What answer did the Minister give?
He said he was only eight months there.
I contradict that statement.
I have no doubt that the Local Appointments Commission will take his experience into consideration when making the appointment.
I think the whole position is ridiculous. Why bring a man away from there each year and bring him back in as assistant manager for three or four months and now for 11 months? On account of that practically a quarter of his time for the past ten years has been spent as assistant county manager. He was also town clerk in a town where a penny in the £ produces only £70 or £80, and is his whole pension now to be thrown back on that town where it will take up to 9d. or 10d. in the £ to superannuate him? These are the things that to my mind should be taken into consideration in a matter of this description. I think it is very wrong to allow a thing like this to happen. Unfortunately, because of the manner in which this Bill has been pulled in and out of the House, nobody knows when it is on or off. It is just a regular juggling match.
And the Deputy spent three and a half hours on it here discussing a section which was not opposed.
And then it is brought in here again unknown to anybody.
The House orders the business and I should like that the Deputy would please confine himself to the section.
I am confining myself to the section and unless I get a guarantee that an amendment will be brought in here on Report Stage on this question of assistant county manager I shall oppose the section.
I have been listening to the discussion on this section between Deputy Briscoe and the Minister and perhaps the Minister would now try to enlighten my mind on the matter. Is not the cumulative effect of Sections 2, 5 and 6 aimed at producing the result that the person named therein will cease to be, if in fact he was before the commencement of the Bill, temporary Dublin Assistant City Manager, and become the manager for the County of Dublin?
That is correct. It would take effect eventually when the thing would come along and be agreed.
What I want to ask the Minister is: Is there no less cumbersome method of producing that result than these three sections?
No, unfortunately. I should like to refer the Deputy to sub-section (2). The position held by Mr. O'Keeffe at the moment is that of temporary Assistant Dublin City Manager. That is the title at the moment. Though he does not take part in the administration of Dublin City affairs his title is that of temporary assistant Dublin City manager.
If he is not in fact a temporary manager at this particular time he cannot become a permanent one?
That is right.
Why cannot the transition take place from the position of temporary manager for Dublin City to that of manager for the county?
For this reason: that the provision made in the Act makes permanent the man who has been temporarily in that position.
He was only a name.
And that is what he will be still. I am referring to the title.
For God's sake, would the Minister settle the matter now?
But I have.
I cannot understand the necessity for the section at all, if the Local Appointments Commission can appoint the gentleman referred to. Why can these appointments not be left to the commission? What is the necessity for providing that a certain person shall hold a certain office?
This is a completely different situation. We are degrouping here and in Cork they are not degrouping. Mr. Keane, the gentleman referred to in sub-section (4) of this section, is retiring this year.
Not this year.
In a very, very short time. I did not create the title which this gentleman holds. These titles were given under the 1940 Act.
That is the position.
They are all degrouping but not at this particular stage. My difficulty is that I have explained the position to a number of Deputies, while some Deputies are out of the House and the Deputies who have been absent have not heard the explanation, come in and ask questions and we start all over again.
It is all very well to say that there is to be degrouping but why must there be provision in regard to a certain case?
Because this gentleman has got a claim under the 1940 Act. That Act gave the Dublin county secretary certain claims and certain rights and a certain status.
And a certain title.
The county secretary of Dublin has certain rights under the 1940 Act.
And why is it necessary to repeat it?
Because he is in a temporary capacity only as Dublin Assistant City Manager.
Did that Act give him any functions?
Yes. I am providing for the day when there is degrouping.
The Minister has brought in this legislation for Dublin.
The Deputy has said that five times.
The Minister has picked out an individual in Dublin who will not have to go before the Appointments Commission like individuals of his kind in every other county.
The Deputy has said that before several times.
A point has been raised here and brought to our notice.
I do not want to interrupt the Deputy and I do not want to be rigid in my ruling but I heard the Deputy say that four or five times.
What I am stating now is that there was provision in a previous Act for the Dublin City Manager and an individual was picked out and given certain rights that do not apply to any other individual in any other county in the country. Now we have the same thing brought in again concerning individuals again in Dublin City. The Minister has come before the House on the plea that this Bill confers certain additional powers on local authorities. He said he was going to give local authorities wide scope but I say that the manner in which the Minister has brought this Bill into the House——
And under Deputy Smith's Bill last year——
I am not talking about Deputy Smith's Bill but about this one. I am suggesting to the Minister that the best thing he can do is recommit the Bill.
It is only a section of the Bill we are discussing now.
The man referred to in sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 22 was originally appointed as secretary to the county council.
Of Dublin County Council.
He has since become assistant manager and there is now a different secretary.
The 1940 Act gave the same privilege to all county secretaries.
This refers specifically to Dublin.
There is another section that deals with Dublin County.
I am only dealing with the one name in the Bill. This Bill proposes to enact that the county manager in a certain area shall be Mr. O'Keeffe; therefore, every county secretary is immediately ruled out from applying to go before the Local Appointments Commission.
If the Deputy reads the section, he will find that that point explains itself.
According to sub-section (5) there will only be one assistant city manager.
Does the Deputy know who the county secretary of Dublin is?
I do not. There is a county secretary.
Who is he?
Probably Mr. O'Keeffe.
Exactly. His official title is county secretary, but he is a temporary assistant manager.
This is getting under my skin.
I can assure the Deputy it is getting under my skin, too.
The Minister has a difficult job in getting this over. He should not think that this is a personal issue between himself and myself at all. The situation is a peculiar one. We have been discussing here a man as a temporary assistant manager.
Who is the county secretary.
That has only emerged now. He has to be that until he is made manager. Therefore, he is holding two positions.
That is right.
I think this is worthy of some simplification. Deputy Bartley asked quite rightly why choose the most cumbersome formula. The Minister is creating a situation and legislating for that situation.
I took a bad headline: I copied this out of Deputy Smith's Bill when he was Minister for Local Government.
That is probably the reason, too, why the Minister adopted the Fianna Fáil Budget to-day.
The Deputy's was the hapenny Budget. Do not forget that.
And the Minister has adopted the Fianna Fáil scale of taxation.
Go out and ask the old age pensioners and the widows and orphans is ours a Fianna Fáil Budget.
Deputies will discuss Section 22 now.
It is no use the Minister saying Deputy Smith has this or Deputy MacEntee has the other. I could go back to another Minister. There were all kinds of changes down through the years. The original Managerial Acts were changed from time to time.
There was a special one in 1929 for Cork City.
There have been all kinds of controls. This, as Deputy Bartley says, is the most cumbersome formula one could possibly have.
So long as it achieves its objective, is it not good enough?
What is the objective?
Not to prejudice the position of the man concerned in any way.
I object to the objective being achieved by making me believe that, without coming through the City of Dublin, a man can become a permanent assistant city manager of Dublin City. How that can be considered a reasonable objective I do not know. I do not know whether an amending Act will be necessary to de-group. Certain consequential situations will arise and the Minister will have to bring in legislation to deal with those situations. I want the Minister to describe this man in this Bill by his proper title. I want him to amend the 1940 Act, if necessary, and call him, notwithstanding what he said in the 1940 Act, Dublin County Assistant Manager and not Dublin City Assistant Manager. If the Minister will not do that, then I shall have to bring in an amendment on the Report Stage because I think this is wrong.
The one point on which I am still not clear is in relation to the question of necessity. It has now transpired that Mr. O'Keeffe is still secretary of Dublin County Council. As far as I can see Section 10 provided quite specifically that he could become county manager. At the time of the passing of the 1940 Act, however, Mr. O'Keeffe was not in this position. Is it because he was not then in this position and because he was not then named that he now has to be named to clear up this situation? Is that what it really boils down to?
No.
The more I read it the less I understand it. To begin with, I do not see why this House should legislate that a particular person must hold a particular post.
In advance of its being created.
That seems undesirable in itself. The House will not know when any section of the Bill is to come into force when it is finished with the Bill.
That precedent was set in 1929 in connection with Cork when a certain person was nominated and his name included in the Act.
Tá
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Barry, Anthony.
- Barry, Richard.
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, Jack.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Burke, James J.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Carew, John.
- Casey, Seán.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Glynn, Brendan M.
- Hession, James M.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Larkin, James.
- Leary, Johnny.
- Lindsay, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- Coburn, George.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Deering, Mark.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Madden, David J.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Morrissey, Dan.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Connor, John.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donovan, John.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, James.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, Harry.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kelly, Edward.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lynch, Celia.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moher, John W.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Walsh, Thomas.
On the section, would the Minister explain this a little more?
Section 24 is the commencement section.
"This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as may be fixed therefor by Order or Orders of the Minister either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so fixed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act."
Could I explain it any more?
I have read all that. I still do not know what it means.
I move amendment No. 31:—
At the reference to the County Management Act, 1940, in the third column, before "22" to insert subsection (7) of Section 16".
This amendment was already discussed.
It fell with amendment No. 5.
I was about to explain that. I said it had already been discussed. I have moved it and I now want the Chair to put it.
It fell.
With respect, this is a different method of achieving the same result.
The question is that at the reference to the County Management Act, 1940, in the third column, before "22" to insert "subsection (7) of Section 16".