We are willing to let the Minister conclude, if it is so desired.
Local Government Bill, 1958—Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Yes.
If the House is agreeable, I shall call on the Minister for Local Government to conclude.
We are agreeable.
There is very little that I wish to say at this stage and, indeed, very little that can be said about this matter. Deputy T. Lynch suggested that the corporation or council should be consulted in all cases such as this before any member is asked to leave office and that, in such a case, if it is decided that he is the right and the best man to hold the job, it should be so. We cannot accept that contention at this stage any more than we could do so in respect of any other member or employee of a local authority. While all that has been said about the manager and his good points may be quite true, it does not in any way affect the matter at issue in this particular Bill.
The argument was also advanced that we should make an attempt at retrenchment and saving by cutting down expenditure and that, by the enactment of this Bill, we are doing the reverse and adding to the cost at a time when we should be cutting down costs. All of these points can be true in their own particular sphere but they are not just or valid arguments in respect of this matter.
The main point at issue is merely a matter of tying up a loose end, if a loose end does exist. A doubt has been expressed in regard to the city manager's tenure of office. While the 1955 Act was supposed to cover all such eventualities and put all of these people into the same line in regard to retirement at 65 years of age, doubts have been expressed and it is to remove, for once and for all, such a doubt that I bring forward this Bill now.
Deputy Dillon's point about other repeals that might be in order deserves attention. If we had more time and if it were appropriate to this Bill, I should be very glad to hear Deputy Dillon's suggestions because I am quite sure that there are possibly other little repeals that could be made with benefit to the service as a whole. Later, when I have an opportunity of going through the various Acts, we may possibly find some such cases and at that stage I am sure Deputy Dillon's suggestions will be very useful indeed.
There is something which I must refer to, lest, from Deputy T. Lynch's speech, it might be thought there was any question of harshness or of taking away from the Waterford City Manager something to which he is entitled. It should be borne in mind that the Waterford City Manager is five or six years over the age limit of 65. In all fairness, I feel that, no matter what doubts may have existed in the previous legislation, he has had a fairly good run for his money.
I want to deal now with a matter mentioned by Deputy Dillon and mentioned, indeed, also by some of our Press during the week, namely, that if we applied the 65 years' age limit to this House we would not have a very big number left. It is well worth considering that Deputies of long standing in this House do not get a pension of £1,200 odd a year or a lump sum of £2,500 when leaving this House. If that were so, there would be quite a scurry to the gates. They would not have to be sent: they would be gone.
So far as the Waterford City Manager is concerned—he is immediately affected—he has exceeded the age limit and he has been there for some time. The terms of the 1955 Act were intended to apply to him just as to everybody else. However, by agreement with the then Minister and Deputy T. Lynch and Deputy Kenneally, it was agreed at that time that the 1955 Act in relation to the Waterford City Manager would not take effect before the 31st December, 1957. That date has now passed. The Order bringing that situation into being was made on the 1st July and the Waterford City Manager ceased to be the permanent Manager of Waterford City as and from the end of December. In order that there should be no complications, he was then reappointed as and from the 1st January, 1958, to be acting city manager. That was done so as to keep everything in order. This Bill has been introduced to bring into being the agreement then made, to consolidate it and to ensure that no doubt will be expressed in the future in relation to the Waterford or any other city manager and that, in future, city managers will have the same terms of office in relation to retiring age as county managers and, indeed, every other member of the local government service. That is all this Bill purports to do and that is all that can be said about it at this stage.
Is the Minister satisfied he can actually retire the Waterford City Manager? I am asking this question for information. Will this Bill give the Minister the authority actually to retire him? He claims that that is not so, due to some special provision?
Let us hope, now that we have brought in the Bill, that all doubts will have been removed.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26th February, 1958.
The Minister may assume that he will probably get the remaining stages then.
I was hoping I would get them now.
The doubt has not been cleared up.