On the 8th August, 1955, a resolution was adopted by the Dublin Corporation under the provisions of the relevant statute calling for separate local government of the city and for the appointment of a city manager solely responsible for the administration of the City of Dublin. A copy of that resolution was forwarded to the Department of Local Government. The adjoining local authority, in accordance with statutory provisions, adopted a similar resolution calling for a manager responsible solely for the administration of the county. No positive action was taken in that matter by the Department or the Minister concerned.
On 8th July, 1957, the matter came before the City Council again. A resolution was adopted appointing a deputation to wait upon the Minister. That deputation was constituted of the then Lord Mayor of Dublin, Councillor Lorcan Burke, Councillor Robert Briscoe, T.D., P.C., Councillor William Coleman, P.C., Councillor Michael G. Dempsey, Councillor Denis Larkin and Councillor Thomas Stafford. Nothing was heard as to the reception of that deputation by the Minister. Later in the same year it was decided to enlarge the deputation. As far as I am aware—if I am wrong I shall willingly express my regret to the Minister—no invitation was extended to the elected representatives of the City Council to meet the Minister and explain their difficulties. Whether correspondence passed between officials is of no immediate concern.
I hold that before appointing a new city manager the Minister should meet the local representatives and hear their case for the appointment of a city manager to administer the affairs of the city alone. I cannot read the Minister's mind, but from information available to me as a Deputy or as a member of that local authority, it seems the Minister has not given any indication of the situation and certainly has not, as far as I am aware, had any discussions with the elected public representatives.
One of the reasons I raise the matter on this occasion is that it appears the Minister has exercised the power which he possesses to refer the filling of the post to the Local Appointments Commissioners. Evidently he was not prepared to hear the reasoned representations even of members of his own Party representing the corporation before he took the steps he has taken. The fear of many of us in this city is that the position may be filled under conditions of which we are not aware, on which we have no opportunity of commenting. The citizens who are supposed to rely in municipal matters on the work of the city manager, the local council and the staff will be faced with a fait accompli. Consequently we may arrive at the situation of having a joint manager or a manager occupying two posts or occupying a dozen posts in the next 20 or 25 years and nobody can do anything about it.
The legislation referred to by the Minister this afternoon indicates that the Minister will require the concurrence of the Ministers for Health and Social Welfare because the administration in our city is so inextricably linked up that very few people know exactly at what point the various authorities start and finish. While the council was making its representations to the Minister we were informed that his colleague, the Minister for Health, is insistent on having a unified health authority. Therefore, the legislation by the Minister which appears to make it easy for him to consider favourably the representations of the local representatives may well be prejudiced to such an extent by other Ministers in the Government that he may be actually powerless.
On at least two occasions since 1955, when the acting city manager of Dublin indicated his desire to retire from office, the council, because of the unsatisfactory nature of the present position, have refused to operate the machinery for the appointment of a successor. I personally am not concerned with how the manager is appointed or who the individual is, but I am concerned that the ordinary citizens of Dublin, who will depend to a great extent on the administration by a manager, should be aware of the conditions governing the appointment and the powers and the duties of the manager.
The Minister must accept the responsibility for his Department and possibly for an act of his predecessors. I am anxious to ensure that those who represent the citizens of Dublin will be given an opportunity to meet the Minister not just as members of this House, whether of his own or of any other Party—there is no great value in that except perhaps to the members of a particular Party—but as members of the local authority, and that the Minister will consider their representations before taking action. In this case I regret very much that it appears to be a fact that the Minister has taken action without affording the elected representatives of the citizens of Dublin an opportunity of speaking to him on the matter.
That is hardly an action that would commend itself to any responsible individual and I do not think that any Minister, no matter what Government he is in, will gain any kudos by dealing with matters purely on the basis of consideration for his own political supporters. This city has a body called the Dublin Corporation which is supposed to have some authority in local affairs, but if local Government is to continue on any satisfactory basis some effort should be made to deal with this matter in a spirit of harmony. On this occasion, perhaps we do not want harmony because we have all kinds of statements being made and possibly only because in the City of Dublin a by-election is pending.