Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Jun 1926

Vol. 7 No. 10

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - LOCAL AUTHORITIES (OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES) BILL, 1926—SECOND STAGE.

Question proposed—"That this Bill be read a Second Time."

Mr. O'FARRELL

This Bill has met with a good deal of criticism both inside and outside the Oireachtas, but in the form it has reached this House it commends itself to me, at all events, as a very distinct advance on existing conditions. It makes a genuine and intelligent attempt to remedy a state of affairs that constituted a great public scandal and that was in some respects as symbolic of Irish life, if not more so, than the wolfhound and the round tower. There have been complaints that the powers, privileges and patronage of local authorities have been more or less impinged upon as a result of the Bill. That is true to a certain extent, but I fail to see how the existing state of affairs could be remedied at all without in some way restricting the existing powers of local authorities. I do not think it would have been practicable to set up a local Civil Service or municipal Civil Service for each authority. It would be expensive and almost unworkable. The Bill does take away patronage, but I think it is the sort of patronage that very few members of public boards would be sorry to lose. This patronage was as embarrassing to the holder as if he lived in a cats' home and carried a parcel of bad fish under his arm.

It made for persistent and undesirable attention from people looking for posts and it constituted a terrible injustice to the efficient, qualified person. Above all, the amount of corruption that existed in regard to the appointment of medical officers was a terrible disgrace and very often an appointment was decided by the amount of money which the successful candidate was able to pay out by way of graft. The sections that made the Bill somewhat humiliating to local authorities have been deleted in the passage of the Bill through the other House and I do not think, on the whole, that there can be any genuine objection to the Bill as it now stands except to the limited extent—it is probably a fairly large extent—that it does take away from a local board the power to make appointments.

Section 11 of the Bill seems somewhat anomalous. An officer or servant of any local authority may on a charge of misconduct or incapacity be suspended either by the local authority or the Minister, but he can be reinstated by the Minister alone. I do not know if that is not going to create a certain amount of confusion by giving one authority the right to suspend without the right to reinstate or to remove the suspension. There is no provision in the Bill providing for the better advertising of existing vacancies. I take it that it is taken for granted that they will be advertised in a proper, efficient way. For instance, if there is a vacancy within any local authority it is only right and proper that the existence of that vacancy should be properly and fully advertised within the area of the local authority because candidates from that particular area would say perhaps that they had a special claim to the vacancy. I cannot see any provision governing the proper advertising of vacancies. At all events, with that exception, I think on the whole the Bill is an exceedingly good one. To me it is particularly welcome. When the Local Government Act was passing through this House I moved an amendment providing for the filling of all public positions by open competition and withdrew it on a promise from the Minister that he would introduce such a Bill as this. He has kept his promise. I think the Bill as a whole is a good one and will enable electors to give more thought to the suitability of candidates for membership of local authorities in the civic sense rather than to their capacity for obtaining posts for people looking for them.

Mr. BENNETT

I do not propose to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. Still I think it requires a certain amount of thought and consideration and I should like to express some views of my own as regards its general tenor. If you take into consideration the fact that existing local authorities have only been in office for 8 or 9 months, I think a considered judgment as to whether they are or are not capable of carrying out their functions in a proper manner is not possible at this stage. I do not think such a judgment can possibly be arrived at and for that reason I think the Bill, in the first place, is a bit premature. You will remember that the local bodies took office about 8 months ago, after a time of tremendous stress and strain in the country when all local ideas were set on one side and national interests were the only things to engage the attention of these bodies. The members of these bodies were then not at all fitted for the positions which they occupied. We all know that they were put into these positions because they were members of certain organisations. All that has been changed. It may not be within the knowledge of the Seanad —though I am sure it is—that at the last election a great amount of thought and care was exercised by various local bodies to put men into these positions who they thought would fulfil their office with satisfaction to the country as a whole—that I think everybody knows.

I agree with Senator O'Farrell that the system of appointment to positions by competitive examination is desirable. Without being egotistical, I might say that in the County Limerick, nearly twenty years ago, I got a resolution passed that all clerical appointments under the County Council should be filled by competitive examination. So far as I know, that was adhered to absolutely until, perhaps, eighteen months ago. Within the last two or three months the Limerick County Council had to appoint an accountant. They immediately proceeded to advertise for a competent accountant and they filled the vacancy by means of a competitive examination. Their only complaint was that in the allocation of marks by the body appointed to conduct the examination they gave as few marks to Irish as to other things which were not essential in the appointment. I think local authorities are entitled to some consideration, and their views ought to be considered. When we are going through this Bill in Committee, and certain amendments are proposed, I hope sympathetic consideration will be given to the fact that new men have arisen to do new work, which the people of the country think they are competent to do, and which they have been appointed to do. This Bill has been introduced without the judgment of the people being taken on it, and it is being hurried through with other measures at a rate which is not conducive to the public good. I regret that we are asked to hurry this Bill through now at the last moment.

Section 7 prevents the local authorities from giving expression to their opinions as to qualifications for appointment. Sub-section 3 says that associations of people, and, mind you, not local authorities, may be consulted as to qualifications that they might consider necessary. In other words, all through the Bill the idea of centralisation is carried to an extraordinary length. Centralisation seems to be a mania with those in power. Section 9 gives power to the Commissioners to dispense with the competitive examination in certain cases when they so wish. They do not ask the local authorities is it wise to dispense with the competitive examination. No, the Commissioners say to themselves: "We will dispense in a particular case with a competitive examination," and it is dispensed with. That is the position. When we are discussing this measure in the Committee Stage I daresay I shall have something to say on that and other matters. Section 11 gives to local authorities the power of suspending an officer. I think that is a valuable provision. It is a provision making clear what was very obscure in local administration in the past. The local authorities had no idea of what their powers were with regard to suspension, but now Section 11 arranges clearly for that. As I said in the beginning, I do not think the public have had sufficient opportunity of discussing this Bill in all its implications. The question of patronage was mentioned by Senator O'Farrell. Patronage may be a low ground on which to attack the Bill, but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that Parliament can exercise patronage under the Bill.

We are told our Ministers have exercised less patronage than any Government in the world, and that is possibly true, but still I do not think we should overlook the fact that local authorities should not be altogether deprived of patronage, a patronage which is not against the public interest, a patronage which will ensure a certain amount of efficiency, and a patronage which will admit of no corruption. This Bill goes a long way in the right direction. I hope the Minister in considering it will, so to speak, let the public bodies down as lightly as he can. In my opinion the Minister for Local Government has already administered a sharp rebuke to the members of public services who have given their time for nothing to the community in serving on the rural district councils, and county councils. When he passed his Local Government Act two years ago he did indeed make provision for local administration. He embodied in that Act a provision that members of local authorities should be put to no expense in the conduct of the affairs of those bodies a very desirable provision indeed. We know that some men have to travel anything from twenty to thirty-five miles to attend to the business of local bodies. The Minister for Local Government provided that they should get 4d. a mile. If a man had to go thirty-five miles—

CATHAOIRLEACH

I am afraid Senator you are passing away from this Bill. There is nothing about expenses in the present Bill.

Mr. BENNETT

But I am trying to argue that it is taking away from certain public authorities certain privileges, and these added to privileges previously taken away would lead us to realise that there are sections in the Bill which are undesirable. For the purposes of argument I am putting that forward. That being the case I think another slur is being cast on the public authorities. I do not think anybody would maintain that it was financial justice to offer these representatives on public bodies scanty sums which would not pay for the shoeing of horses in bringing some of them on their long journeys to attend meetings, having no regard to the other expenses which they must incur. While I think the Bill should get a Second Reading I am of opinion that it should get very careful consideration on the Committee Stage and I hope that any amendments that will be submitted will receive careful consideration.

Sir EDWARD BIGGER

I did not intend to intervene in this matter, but a point has been raised by Senator Bennett regarding the short time the new authorities have been functioning, which, I think, does not affect the Bill at all, for after all this question of appointment by competitive examination has been before the country a long time. It was one of the recommendations of the Viceregal Commission which reported in 1906. It was discussed then, and it received the approval of local authorities. It has been discussed by various bodies and officials, and it has received nothing but approval. I think it is a big step in advance and the Government are to be congratulated on introducing the Bill, which I hope will pass.

Mr. GUINNESS

It is the practice when a Bill is introduced in the other House that the Minister in charge gives an explanation of it to the House. That has not been the practice here. I think in the case of a Bill which may be taken as contentious it would be an advantage to the House if the Minister in charge would open the Second Reading by giving a short sketch as to the meaning of the Bill.

Mr. FARREN

I am wholeheartedly in support of this Bill because of the principles contained in it. I think Senators will remember that we from those benches urged that there should be a competitive examination for all positions under local authorities. An amendment to that effect was put down by Senator O'Farrell when the Local Government Act was under consideration here, and the Minister gave a definite promise that a Bill would be introduced dealing with that question. I have been a member of public boards, and I know the evil of canvassing. I know canvassing was made a science, and when I hear people talking of the privileges of members of public boards, and that sort of thing, I say that in my opinion this Bill is for the protection of members of public boards, if I know anything about it. If the members of this House had the experience of those who have unfortunately been members of public boards with regard to canvassing, I feel sure every one of them who desires to work for the interest of his community in his locality would welcome this Bill which will relieve members of public boards of an undue and unfair pressure being brought to bear upon them on every occasion when an appointment has to be made. I have had experience of the value of competitive examinations in the recruitment of staffs for public authorities. I was a member of that much-maligned body, the Dublin Corporation, which twenty-five years ago on its own volition instituted competitive examinations for the clerical staff.

I say without hesitation or fear of contradiction that as a result of the competitive system of examination the clerical staff of the Dublin Corporation will compare favourably with any branch of the Civil Service. I think anybody who has had any experience of the staff will admit that. We wholeheartedly support this Bill, and we believe in the principle that people should be appointed to positions on merit alone, and that political, religious or any other influence should not be brought to bear in connection with these appointments on people who have to do the work of the community as a whole. A private employer when filling an appointment selects the most capable person for it, and, similarly, the public representatives who are handling the ratepayers' money are bound to see that they get the best service on behalf of the ratepayers.

There is one anomaly regarding the Bill to which I would like to call attention. I am a whole-hogger, and I believe in going the whole way and seeing that the public boards will be bound to accept the person who secures the highest number of marks in the examinations. I also think it is reasonable to expect that the people who are appointed to hold these competitive examinations should be subject to competitive examinations themselves. Senator Sir John Keane shakes his head, but a principle is a principle, and if you are afraid of patronage for a clerk of a county council, or some other official of the council, surely there is also the danger of patronage regarding the Commissioners who have to hold the examinations. Of course, they may be recruited from the Civil Service, and have passed a competitive examination. I think under Section 3 of this Bill the Executive Council has power to appoint any persons it likes without any examination whatever to be commissioners.

I simply call attention to that fact, and I do hope that on the Committee Stage of this Bill this House will teach the other House a lesson and teach them that we are whole-hoggers in this matter of competitive examinations, and if the principle is to be introduced, the principle should go the whole way. I make that suggestion, and I hope that between this and the Committee Stage the Minister will look into that point, and if he looks into it fairly and squarely he must admit that if it is introduced at all the principle of open competition must be carried the whole way.

Mr. LINEHAN

As far as this Bill goes towards providing that appointments should be made by competitive examinations, I am entirely in favour of it. In reading over that section of the Bill I do not see that the competitive examination is to be an open one. From the experience we have had up to the present in the filling of appointments, we are not satisfied on that point. We very often see a condition put into the advertisement that such and such a class will get preference. I do not think it is fair to the bulk of the ordinary citizens of the Saorstát that when they enter for an examination of that sort they should be handicapped by such a condition as that. I do hope that in the future when the Minister is dealing with this subject no such unfair conditions will be put in when inviting candidates to sit for a competitive examination for those appointments. I really think that up to the present we have had no appointments filled by local competitive examinations.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Section 8, subsection (2) of the Bill provides that "Every such competitive examination shall be open to all persons desiring to attempt the same who possess, or claim to possess, the qualifications prescribed."

Mr. LINEHAN

The qualifications will be prescribed by the Minister. I want to guard against the possibility of the Minister putting in conditions as to qualifications of which we have already had experience in the filling of appointments already made. I wish to guard against that.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (Mr. Burke)

Would the Senator be more specific with regard to that? I want to know exactly what point he is making.

Mr. LINEHAN

I am alluding to appointments where conditions have been inserted that preference will be given to National Army men. I want in future when appointments are to be made that these appointments will be open to every citizen of the Saorstát. I think if the word "open" were inserted before "competitive" it might cover the point that I am dealing with.

CATHAOIRLEACH

It would not. You were quite right in saying that under a previous section the qualifications are to be prescribed by the Minister.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I should like to make a few brief remarks as to the general character appropriate to this discussion. Senator Bennett has pointed out that this Bill represents an increasing tendency towards the centralisation of administrative functions of a local character in the central Government. I admit that in taking a short view that is probably right; that you will get increased efficiency by centralisation and by what is called bureaucracy, but you are departing altogether in doing so from the original intentions of the Local Government Act. The spirit—the intention—of that Act was that these local bodies were to be what might be considered a nursery for the training of our public administrators. We are departing more and more from that aspect of the problem every day. I would not mind doing so if we were tackling it at the right end, if we were limiting the powers of democracy; but while we are getting rid of democratic principles in our local service we are leaving them to stand intact in our central service and I think that is inconsistent. I myself do not think it wise to lessen, as we are doing every day, the responsibilities for local administration and local administrators. I happen to be a member of a local authority and on every single question, if we are in any way likely to depart from the normal practice, we are held up by the Local Government Department. I know that the Department had great provocation, seeing that local bodies were getting off the rails, and consequently there is great temptation for an official with an orderly mind tied down to official rules and regulations, with principles and formula to check any such tendency.

But you cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs and you cannot train people without allowing them to make mistakes. I am prepared to say that with regard to the Bill our present local administration has in it very little training for the members of those public bodies. In local administration you can do things of a routine character but if those bodies show the least imagination or the least initiative they are held up. The effect of that will be to prevent men of the right type coming in to local government. I speak with a certain amount of knowledge and experience. Discouragements have been received and controls have been wrongly imposed on the local authorities and, although this Bill in itself may be acceptable, it represents to my mind a dangerous tendency. The question is whether having gone so far as we have gone, it would not be better to go the whole hog and practically govern the country for a number of years by Commissioners or a central administration. I know that you could get better results by that method but the question is, would you sacrifice these local bodies as schools of training? From the very little value they are now as schools of training you might perhaps sacrifice them altogether and go more and more towards centralisation. I cannot agree with Senator O'Farrell or his colleague in their veneration for competitive examinations. You may get an extremely good book product from competitive examinations, but not the best for the purpose. If you have to seek the ideal system you would want to give at least as many marks for the human qualities as you do for book learning, and if you are to arrive at a good system you would give half marks for competitive examination and set up a good standard and allow the Civil Service Commissioners to select them at the interview. It has been proved in several other walks of life that an interview gives you the most valuable indication of a man's qualifications. What about the medical examination? I do not see any provision for the medical examination.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That will come under the clause prescribing the qualifications.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I think it ought to be down definitely in the statute.

Mr. BURKE

It is in Section 7, under qualifications as to health, etc.

Sir JOHN KEANE

Yes, that section deals with the point. That is all I want to say on this Bill. It is a Bill that ought to receive a Second Reading. On the other hand, the House ought be fully alive to the tendencies it represents and we ought to decide now whether we are to move more towards the centre or get back to having bodies as a training ground.

Mr. JACKSON

I had a fairly lengthy experience in connection with public boards and I am very glad to see this Bill brought into the Seanad. The canvassing—I would not exactly call it corruption—that occurs in connection with almost every appointment has been carried on to an alarming extent. I think those who have had experience of these things in the past will look upon this Bill with great relief. There will, no doubt, be a cry raised about the patronage being taken away from local bodies but we will be bound to see a much better type of official in the future. I hope that Senator Sir John Keane's proposal regarding competitive examinations will be taken into account. I do not suppose the Commissioners will appoint the man who is able to pass a written examination without requiring other qualifications. I would like to emphasise Senator O'Farrell's suggestion that there ought be the widest publicity given when any appointments have to be made in a locality so that those in the district may have time to prepare themselves. I think that we would all be delighted to see as far as possible those local positions held by men belonging to the local districts and I think every facility should be given to the local candidates so as to give them a fair chance of competing for the local appointments. It will encourage these men to take more pains and to educate themselves better. I would not like to see appointments drifting away from the district and strangers brought in. I am certain that the country generally will be greatly relieved at getting rid of the system of canvassing. Senator Sir John Keane has referred to local government. We have had twenty-five years' experience of it and I think nobody can honestly contend that the system has been a success. In the matter of appointments it was not the best man who was elected, but the man who had the most support behind him or who belonged to the strongest clan in the district.

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

I think that this Bill is assured of a fairly easy passage through the Seanad. The Seanad, I take it, is generally in favour of the provisions of this measure. I may say at once that personally I am strongly in favour of it. I have been in favour of the system of competitive examinations for a considerable number of years. And I wish the Minister well in his efforts to meet the situation that has grown up amongst us. Senator Sir John Keane has raised a point of some importance in connection with the examination. He suggests that it might be very well in connection with this examination if part and parcel of it consisted of a personal interview. Certainly I am rather in favour of an interview and I do not think it is ruled out by the Bill. In the drawing-up of the curriculum for these examinations the matter might be borne in mind and I hope the Minister will bear it in mind.

Senator Farren touched very lightly upon a point on which the Bill may turn—that is, the questions of the examiners. The question of the examiners seems to be one of some little obscurity. I was under the impression, from reading the newspapers and the discussion in the Dáil on this Bill, that the examinations were to be conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners. I see from Section 3 of the Bill that the Government may appoint local appointments committees to do that work. I presume the members of these committees would be selected from the panel of the Civil Service Commissioners. I see also that the Bill says that a Civil Service Commissioner shall not be ineligible for appointment as a commissioner to the local appointments committees. I hope that means that these examinations will really be conducted by our Civil Service Commissioners. Section 8 states that anyone who wants to get an appointment is eligible to compete at these examinations. I think that is perfectly fair. Anyone, I take it, who wants an appointment, whether it be that of a deputy surveyor or a rate collector, may sit for one of these examinations. I do not know whether it is proposed to include rate-collectors, but possibly they could be roped in, and conceivably it might be advantageous to do so. At any rate, I think this Bill is a step in the right direction, and that the Minister is to be congratulated on tackling this question which unmistakably is one of the drawbacks in our system of local administration. We want the very best men appointed to positions under these local bodies. Incidentally, the Bill will be a great measure of relief to members of local bodies. I think there can be no doubt about that.

Mr. BURKE

There are one or two points on which perhaps it might be well that I should say something. At the outset I might say that, to a great extent, this Bill was an agreed measure in the Dáil. There was one small section that seemed to be opposed to it and hoped to delay its passing in any form. Only in that way was there a certain amount of opposition to it. As the divisions showed there was a very large volume of support in the Dáil for the Bill. As the same elements are to some extent represented in the two Houses of the Oireachtas, I anticipated that there would not be very much opposition to the measure here, and for that reason I did not think it necessary to make a long opening statement, particularly as there was a good deal of publicity given to the Bill when it was going through the Dáil. It is not a very long Bill. There are only thirteen sections in it altogether. Senator O'Farrell dealt with Section 11 and thought there was a certain anomaly in allowing the local authority as well as the Minister to have the power to suspend officers under various circumstances whereas the Minister alone has the power to reinstate. That is the position at the present time as regards reinstatement. I considered it well to give this power of suspension to the local authorities so that in cases of emergency, if an official made away with funds or did anything like that, the local authority would have the power to take from him any authority he possessed as an official. As regards reinstating an official, I consider it would probably be inadvisable to give power in that matter to the local authority. It would mean creating a precedent and I do not think that would be wise. With regard to another point raised, I do not think it would be advisable to insert anything in the Bill limiting the time during which the vacant positions should be advertised. Unimportant positions need only be advertised for a couple of weeks, whereas in the case of very important positions it might be well to leave them open for several months.

Senator Bennett harped on a point that was discussed at very great length in the Dáil. He took up the point of view of the opposition party in the Dáil, namely that the present local authorities have only been in office for a very short time and that we should not curtail their powers until we saw how they were going to make use of them. As I reiterated again and again in the Dáil, it is not a question of the personnel of the local authorities at all. When the Local Government Bill was going through the Seanad I promised Senator O'Farrell that I would introduce a Bill such as this, and it has been introduced irrespective of the personnel of these bodies altogether. In taking away the power of patronage from the local authorities I am not casting any slur on them. We are only doing as regards them what exactly has been done in the case of Ministers, and in the case of the Dáil and Seanad. Senators need only try to visualise the state of affairs that would exist for themselves if appointments in the Civil Service could only be made as the result of their vote. That is the position at the present time as regards local authorities. It is the position that the best type of local representative resents, and that I believe Senators and members of the Dáil would also resent if a similar situation existed here. I do not think Senator Farren's proposal of having an examination for the Commissioners would be practicable, and I do not know what kind of test you could apply in order to secure the best possible material for the position. Those Commissioners will be civil servants. The personnel of the present Civil Service Commissioners will be availed of and I do not think there will be any extra remuneration for them. I re-echo what Senator Farren said about the staff of the Dublin Corporation which has been recruited by this system. If it were not for them we certainly would have had very great difficulty in carrying on the administration of the city during the last few years. At this stage I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more on the Bill.

Mr. MacGUINNESS

Senators and others have made statements with regard to the alleged corruption that prevailed in the case of local bodies. Statements of the kind have been made repeatedly here. I think that instances of this alleged corruption should be given, and that we should have a statement from the Minister on the matter. It is very serious indeed that statements of this kind should be made without any proof being given to support them. I think this is a point that the Minister should deal with. I suggest that if he were to take up the matter, he would be able to justify the very good work that, in my opinion, has been done by these local councils under extremely difficult circumstances during the last five or six years. If there has been corruption, then we ought to get particulars.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think the Senator is asking the Minister to do a very difficult and delicate thing. The Minister will be able to tell the Senator whether in fact cases of corruption have been brought to his knowledge, but to specify what they were and who the guilty parties were, is a task that, I think, would be beyond the Minister.

Mr. MacGUINNESS

Serious insinuations have been made against public bodies. I think this matter ought to be taken up by the Minister and answered in a clear and definite way. I think that in justice to these public bodies the Minister should correct these statements if they are not true, and if they are true, then let us have the proofs. It is not fair, I think, to have public bodies slandered in this way, considering the very difficult circumstances in which they had to carry on during the last five or six years.

Mr. BURKE

I do not know what is behind the Senator's statement. If I have made any statement accusing local authorities generally of corruption or anything like that——

Mr. MacGUINNESS

I did not say that the Minister made any statement of the kind. What I did say was, that statements of this character have been made by Senators in this House.

Mr. BURKE

I am not responsible for the statements of other people.

Mr. McGUINNESS

I think the statements made here ought to be corrected.

Question—"That the Bill be read a second time"—put and agreed to.