Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Feb 1958

Vol. 165 No. 3

Local Government Bill, 1958—Second Stage

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. In all major branches of the public service, there is a compulsory retiring age. Power was given to Ministers by Section 23 of the Local Government Act, 1941, in respect of offices for which each such Minister is the appropriate Minister, to declare an age limit for all or any of the various categories of posts in the local government service. The section contemplated that this might be done in a piecemeal way because of the wide variety of jobs, and the differing conditions surrounding them. As regards offices for which I am responsible, as Minister for Local Government, Orders were made in 1942, 1943, 1946, 1951 and 1957, fixing 65 as the retiring age for holders of local offices who would be entitled to a pension when they retired.

The 1957 Order is the "age limit order" referred to in the Bill. It is a consolidating Order and completes the process of fixing an age limit for all local offices for which the Minister for Local Government is the appropriate Minister. Only a small number of offices remained to be dealt with: the others had been covered by previous Orders which the comprehensive 1957 Order superseded and revoked.

Some doubts had been expressed as to the generality of the application of the previous Orders in cases where certain officers had a particular tenure of office under statute, more especially statutes of restricted local application. Section 24 of the Local Government Act, 1955, and the Second Schedule of the Act, which amend Section 23 of the Act of 1941, purported to remove those doubts. By these provisions a declaration fixing an age limit in respect of an office or offices was to relate to them

"...notwithstanding any other provision made by or under statute in relation to holding such offices ...(including in particular a provision for holding office until death, resignation or removal from office) and in any such case the declaration and this section shall have effect notwithstanding such other provision."

As can be seen from the definition of "relevant offices" in the Bill and from the repeals in Section 3, the offices with this special statutory tenure are those of county manager and city manager. No doubt arises about county managers: the 1955 Act effectively equated their tenures with other local officers and they are mentioned in this Bill simply because to leave them out might lead to doubts at a subsequent date as to why they were not dealt with now. But some doubt remains in relation to the four offices of city manager, because of the fact that each of them gets its tenure from a specific provision of a specific Act.

To the layman, and indeed to a number of lawyers, the intention and the effect of the Act of 1955 are clear enough; but it appears that the intention and the effect have not been put beyond all doubt. For that reason the Government decided that the issue should be finally resolved by legislation.

As can be seen, therefore, the Bill raises no new issue of principle: it merely clarifies something that it was definitely intended to provide for in the Act of 1955.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister has just said that this Bill does not really apply to county managers who are just mentioned in it, in case any confusion might arise in the future. The Bill actually deals with the city managers of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford.

I happen to be a member of Waterford Corporation for 17 years and I have some experience of managers—a commissioner, a manager, a temporary manager, a permanent manager, a temporary manager, and another temporary manager and the present city manager. All these men were very competent, but I could say that there was a gap in effective administration each time a new man had to come in and feel his way.

We now have a city manager in Waterford, appointed, we shall say, under the City Management Act of 1939. This Bill repeals sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Waterford City Management Act which said that the city manager would be employed until such time as he died or retired. This Bill is then actually a worsening of the conditions of this man's employment. I mention the Waterford City Manager particularly because so far as Dublin is concerned the city manager has gone; he is not mentioned here. The position is not yet filled; it is probably waiting for this Bill.

I submit to the Minister and to the House that in the case where a manager has given satisfaction and has proved himself to be an excellent administrator, where he has an excellent record in acquiring land and promoting housebuilding, the people who should be consulted are the councillors concerned. If the Minister through his Department, would examine the record of the Waterford City Manager and consider then consulting the Mayor and Corporation of Waterford, and if they agreed that the Waterford City Manager should be continued in office, I think he would agree that an exception should be made.

I am not in a position to speak for Limerick or Cork, but I think the same would apply to Limerick and Cork City Managers because these men were employed under the 1939 Act and the passing of this Bill would be, as I have said, a worsening of conditions.

In this year of 1958, when we are supposed to retrench and save money, and where local authority members of the Dáil are all the time expected to save money wherever they can, I put it to the Minister that this is not the time to allow a competent and active official to go, pay him a good pension, and bring in another man who will take some time to get the "feel" of his job, and pay him a big salary as well. We are actually spending money we should not be spending, money we could save.

I will not say any more about this man because he is not the kind of man who would welcome it. I have had the honour of being a member of the Waterford Corporation for many years since his appointment. I have worked under other managers. I have nothing to say about them, but they had not the feel of the place. The man to whom I refer is a Waterford man and a very competent official.

I should not like the members of the House to get the idea that I agreed with this man at all times. I have had definite clashes with him, but I always had to admire his main policies and the manner in which he carried out his duties. He has given the City of Waterford a great estate in lands that he purchased to greater advantage than any estate agent in the country would have purchased them. We are in the lucky position in Waterford that at present we are building houses on land in the City of Waterford, within the borough boundary of Waterford, on lands that were purchased by the present city manager for £65 an acre.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The qualifications of the city manager may not be discussed on this Bill.

Mr. T. Lynch

I accept your ruling, Sir, but in view of the fact that a section in this Bill means that this city manager should go, I did not think it would be any harm to tell the House that he was a most competent official and that his record was so excellent that I had hoped the Minister would listen to my plea for him. I will only say that this man has left the people of Waterford a very great estate in lands which he purchased wisely and well.

I would point out to the Minister that the conditions of employment of city managers were laid down and that this Bill will worsen these conditions. I would point out to him that if the Waterford City Manager were retired, he would have to be paid his pension and the new man would have to be paid full salary. That will also apply in Cork in a very short time. I hope the Minister will give that matter fair consideration.

Mr. Casey

I had thought that this short Bill would be unanimously welcomed in this House and that it would get a very swift passage. I was surprised to hear the contribution made by Deputy Lynch of Waterford. As has been pointed out by the Minister, there is no new principle being invoked in this Bill. It is simply a tightening up of legislation that has been passed already. It was intended in the 1955 Bill that the city managers referred to in this Bill should be compulsorily retired at the age of 65, and, as the Minister points out, it is only to tighten that matter up and to remove any doubts that may exist in the minds of certain people that this Bill is being introduced. From the way that Deputy Lynch spoke, one would think that city managers were a special breed as far as intelligence and competence are concerned.

Mr. T. Lynch

I did not say that. I spoke of one man.

Mr. Casey

I am merely giving my own interpretation of Deputy Lynch's contribution to the debate. I did not hear Deputy Lynch make any such case for other officers and servants of local authorities or, indeed, for officers and servants of State Departments.

This principle has been long accepted and I see no reason why it should not apply to city managers. I do not think that Deputy Lynch should endeavour to get us into the position that, by voting for this Bill, we are voicing our opinion as to the competence of any particular city manager. It is a principle that has been accepted here at all stages.

Very many people have given as much service to their local authority and to State Departments as the present Waterford City Manager has given to Waterford and I have not heard Deputy Lynch say at any time that these people should be retained beyond the age of 65. A principle that applies by and large to local government officers and servants and to civil servants should apply also to city managers and I was really surprised to find that there was any opposition at all to this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

I want to raise a question. This is a miscellaneous provisions Bill, introduced to deal with certain matters. The Minister says that none of them gives rise to any new principle. I wonder has the Minister's attention been directed to what appears to me to be an anomaly in the local government code. I understand the present position is that, under the existing code, if two counties elect to have a common manager and subsequently discover that it would be more economical to revert to the status quo ante and go back to the system of having a manager for each county, it cannot be done unless both local authorities unanimously agree.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not appear to be relevant to this present Bill.

Mr. Dillon

This is a miscellaneous provisions Bill which could contain anything.

Mr. Blaney

It is not.

Mr. Dillon

The Bill is entitled:—

"An Act to make provision with retrospective effect for the removal of doubts in respect of the application of Section 23 of the Local Government Act, 1941, as amended by Section 24 of the Local Government Act, 1955, and the Local Government (Officers Age Limit) Order, 1957, and in respect of cesser of office by certain persons and for the repeal of certain enactments."

Is it limited? I am asking you now to repeal additional enactments. I want you to repeal more enactments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may refer only to what is in this present Bill.

Mr. Dillon

On the Second Stage?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On the Second Stage.

Mr. Dillon

I want to propose that we repeal more enactments and, so far as I know, I can put down an amendment to this Bill to repeal another enactment. Can I not? It is a general, omnibus Bill. However, I submit that on an omnibus Bill of this kind, which the Minister tells us is merely for the purpose of clearing up certain ambiguities in the existing code, it is open to any of us to suggest that other ambiguities be cleared up in the same code, and here is a situation which I think is deserving of attention. I do not know whether the Minister's attention has been directed to it. If it has, I suggest to him that he should avail of this or some other Bill to put it right.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see how it can be argued on the Bill before the House.

Mr. Dillon

Very well, Sir, if you say so; I do not mind. I suppose we can have it again, but I thought that if you had a general Bill of this kind, you could add anything you liked to it affecting the local government code. This Bill is designed to amend the local government code. I am asking the Minister to amend it in another particular which I think is much more urgently in need of amendment than the amendment here proposed.

I am amused by the Deputy from Cork, Deputy Casey, at his expression of pain and distress at the very thought that this lofty principle of disposing of public servants at the age of 65 should be even questioned in Oireachtas Éireann. You would almost imagine that we had questioned the Decalogue. I do not know why one should choose 65, any more than any other age. If you applied that rule to Dáil Éireann, there would be a great scattering from these benches. I am not prepared to attack the existing arrangement that 65 is accepted, on the whole, as a reasonable age at which public servants may qualify for their rights and retire, mainly to make way for the younger men coming up. However, I do not think there is anything sacrosanct about it.

Mr. Corish

No, so long as the same rules apply all round. That is his only point.

Mr. Dillon

I have such a profound respect for Deputy Casey that I take his spoken word literally: I never try to interpret it. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.