Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Feb 1929

Vol. 11 No. 5

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - CORK CITY MANAGEMENT BILL, 1928.—REPORT STAGE.

Mr. MILROY

I move:—

Section 3, sub-section (4). To delete in lines 35-36 the words "not being later than one month before the appointed day."

This amendment has been rendered necessary by the delay in passing the Bill through the Oireachtas. Under the Bill as it stands a period of not less than one month must elapse between the election of the new councillors and the appointed day on which the new Council shall meet. It is desirable that the new Council should be responsible for the rate for the year commencing at the beginning of next April, and for the Estimates upon which that rate will be based, but owing to the delay in the passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas, it seems improbable that the election of the councillors can take place before about the middle of March, and a further delay of a month between that election and the first meeting would, it is considered, postpone unduly the making of the rate for the year. For that reason it is considered advisable that this amendment should be moved in order to enable that month's interval to be dispensed with and the Council to meet as soon as possible after the election takes place. For that reason I move the amendment.

Mr. DOWDALL

I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move:—

Section 9. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(3.) An officer of the Corporation shall be entitled to make representations to the Council in respect of any action of the Manager in exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section and by Section 14 by which the officer is aggrieved, and the Council shall have power to consider the representations when made, and whenever a two-thirds majority of the Council are of opinion that the representations are well founded, to rescind or vary the action of the Manager giving cause to the grievance as from the date it took effect.

This is a proposal to safeguard the rights of the officers of the Corporation under the new dispensation. Section 9 (1) gives the power which at present resides in the Corporation— that is to say the Council—over to the manager in respect of the appointment and removal of officers and servants of the Corporation. The amendment seeks to give the right to an officer of the Corporation to make representations to the Council in respect of an action of the manager which the officer considers to cause a grievance, and if the Council considers it desirable, after such representations have been made, and if the Council by a two-thirds majority decides that the representations are well-founded, the action of the manager may be varied, without the necessity, of course, of taking the extreme decision of removing the manager. I think that there always ought to be some action possible other than that of dismissal. One can readily conceive of a manager being appointed at some date in the future who is arbitrary in his decisions and who has little regard for the rights and the usages of the officers of the Corporation. In such a case, as at present under the Bill, the officer has no locus standi at all; he has merely to obey the manager, no matter what the manager may order, and if there is any real grievance, which in the ordinary course of things would be presentable to the Council by the aggrieved officer, at present under the Bill the officer would have no rights whatever, except subterranean approaches to the members of the Council. I desire that that should not be necessary, that there should be, clearly stated in the Bill, the right of officers, if aggrieved by the action of the manager, to make representations to the Council.

This amendment is moved at the request, not merely of officers of the Cork Corporation, but of officers of high positions in the services of towns and cities, having regard to the probability that this Bill is merely the prelude to a series of Bills appointing civic managers. They feel that it is necessary to safeguard the rights of, let us say, the town clerk, or the city treasurer, the town surveyor, or whatever the position may be, that the official will have the right of approach to the Council, if the manager acts in an arbitrary fashion and overrides by steam-roller methods the practices and, if I may say so, the privileges, or certainly the rights of the individual officer. It may be said that the individual officer has an approach to the Minister. I am not sure that he has; I am very doubtful whether he has. But I think that the Council, which has, or is presumed to have, ultimately a deciding voice in the government of the city, should be approachable by an officer who is aggrieved by the action of the manager.

Mr. FARREN

I formally second the amendment.

Mr. DOWDALL

On the face of it, this amendment is very plausible, and one reading it might regard it as reasonable enough. I have one specific case in mind, where a subordinate officer of a department, with powerful friends and a pull in the Council, was able to flaunt and to thwart the work of a very important and responsible chief of a department in the Corporation in the old days, and by reason of his pull and his influence, which was largely political, was able really not only to put his titular chief—because that is what he actually was—in a most humiliating and embarrassing position, to the utter loss to the city and the efficient carrying on of the department. I believe I am right in saying that officials of the city have a right of appeal to the Local Government Department, or to the Minister, and if this is passed I take it that the appeal to the Minister will be largely nullified. Frankly, I prefer an appeal to an outsider who is not pulled by local influences or by local prejudices in the decision on a matter as between the official and the city manager. Senator Johnson has referred to dismissal, but what is stated in his amendment is "aggrieved," and anybody who has had to deal with any number of employees knows that there are people of a querulous and cranky disposition who feel aggrieved, or suspect grievances, in every conceivable circumstance that crops up. I think that the official is very much more effectively and usefully safeguarded for the carrying on of the administration of the city by the Bill as it stands, and I will oppose the amendment.

Mr. GUINNESS

As far as I can see the amendment suggested would cut into all the responsibilities of the manager. In almost every place officials have the power to appeal to the body under which they serve, that appeal being put forward in a regular and recognised manner. It would doubtless have to pass through the manager, but still the manager would be bound, I take it, under his appointment to note and to send on to his council any petitions from these people. If what Senator Johnson wishes to do is carried out everybody —every boy in the place—would be appealing, without any reference to the manager, to the council, if aggrieved in any small and trivial matter. I think that that would cut into the whole power of the manager.

Mr. O'FARRELL

The case put by Senator Dowdall, I think, assumes an extreme case. What is suggested in this amendment is really only what operates in practically all business concerns. I think a general manager is invariably appointed with powers of appointment, promotion and dismissal. Still, every employee knows that he has a right, if necessary, of appeal to the board of directors. Yet this privilege is very rarely availed of, because it is only in a very extreme case that any employee with an ounce of intelligence or tact will think of appealing against a decision of his own general manager. He realises the extent to which that would estrange relationships between himself and his chief for the remainder of his time in that employment, and he will not lightly make an appeal to a higher authority. In this case, of course, the viewpoint of the manager is safeguarded to the extent that any decision of his can only be rescinded by a two-thirds majority. It is possible that some other type of procedure in that respect might be devised, but the principle to me seems to be really only to adopt what is in operation in all business concerns. Senator Guinness himself has admitted that that is the case, and I think he will find from his own experience that it is not availed of to any extent; but it is a source of confidence and creates confidence in the minds of the employees that no grave injustice can be perpetrated by one person without at least the right of an appeal to some other authority. I cannot fancy any man who happens to be merely a crank repeatedly appealing to the Council. In the first place, if he is turned down once he will not be encouraged to go there again, and if the Council does rectify what he considers is a grievance, two-thirds of them must be convinced of the fact, and two-thirds of the elected representatives are hardly likely to become convinced that there is a grievance if there is no grievance. If there is a grievance I think that it should be remedied. I see no argument in principle against this. This is a procedure that operates in business concerns and has not been abused, and I fail to see that there is any undue tendency on the part of the employees in the Cork Corporation to abuse it, any more than in the case of employees in any industrial concern.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (General Mulcahy)

Senator Dowdall spoke of the plausible look of this particular amendment, but I do not see very much plausibility in it. I think it is too patent and clear to be regarded as plausible. There is a lot more plausibility in what Senator O'Farrell said in support of it. In the first place this amendment is not what Senator Johnson suggests it is, simply a kind of charter to the officer dealing with the question as to whether he will be dismissed or put to some other class of work in the public service. It provides that where an officer—and an officer may be regarded as any person who does not do manual work—is aggrieved, whether, as far as that particular amendment is concerned, he is aggrieved because he does not get an increment, whether he is aggrieved because he is put to serve elsewhere, whether he is aggrieved because he does not get his holidays in June as against September, he has the right of appeal to the Council. The whole atmosphere of the Council can, under this particular amendment, be invaded by one of the most important classes of things that we want to take out of the sphere of the Council, in order that they may apply themselves to the real spheres in which they can most usefully give the best service. The Senator says it may be suggested— although it is not clear—that the officer has the right of appeal to the Minister. The officer has most explicitly the right of appeal to the Minister because the manager, no more than any local body, cannot override the Minister, where the Minister takes up a particular attitude with regard to remuneration, conditions of service, or conditions of superannuation and the main details of any officer's employment. Attention is directed to sub-section (2) of Section 14 which says:—

Subject to the provisions of any regulations made by the Minister under any Act and for the time being in force in relation to the service, remuneration, privileges or superannuation (as the case may be) of the officers and servants of a local authority the Manager shall consider and decide all such questions as may from time to time arise in relation to the service, remuneration, privileges and superannuation of the officers and servants of the Corporation.

The amendment would take the officers of the Cork Corporation from under the protection that the Minister has over these particular matters. My own experience is not so long, but the experience of the Department is that we have very many more appeals to the Minister to protect employees from arbitrary, or alleged ill-considered, actions of local bodies, with regard to their employees and officers than we have the other way round. There is no comparison here with the business firms that Senator O'Farrell speaks of. I do not think the Senator could show us any charter in any company which says that an employee shall have the right of appeal to the Board of Directors as against the manager, or any statement of the manager's position saying, "You shall conduct this business as manager, but any employee who has a grievance against your decision shall have the right of appeal to the Board of Directors." This is a charter, and we have to take it on all fours with the charter of a company. I suggest you do not find those things there. The employee in any business firm has not the same kind of appeal against the manager's decision that the officer of the local body has—to the Minister —when the Minister is in a position to review the whole circumstances. He harmonises the whole statutory provisions and regulations which he has, so far as they can be usefully harmonised with the terms of service under local bodies, giving the protection that is desirable, so as to preserve efficiency, contentment, and harmony of the machinery, so that no injustice is done to these officers. This amendment would do an injustice to the officers, because it would do an injustice to people in a responsible position, such as the manager, if he was not able to keep his machine in the effective and disciplined way that Section 9 and Section 14 of the Bill intend he should, so that he will bear effectively the peculiar responsibility that is placed on him. The Council has its own particular sphere of action, and it is only dissipating and prejudicing the proper work if a grievance of any officer can come up for discussion, because where there is the question of a two-thirds majority a grievance can be brought under discussion in the Council. That is what we do not want, and what, I am sure, Senators do not want. As far as the officers are concerned, the most satisfactory way for their own protection is that they would be subject to the immediate control of the manager in the discharge of their duties, and that their appeal should be to the Minister.

Mr. JOHNSON

I make my case, in the words of Senator Guinness, that there is assumed to be in all such concerns, and in all public business, the right of appeal by employees to the body under whom they serve. That is all I desire. Is the body whom these officers serve the manager or is it the Corporation? The Corporation under the new regime consists partially of the manager and partially of a Council. Should they not have the right of appeal to the body whom they serve? I would ask the Seanad to bear in mind especially what the Minister said, the intention of the Minister when drafting the Bill. In the original draft of the Bill there was a certain word which was ultimately deleted, but which indicated the intention of the Ministry, and when Senators realise this they will understand how light the value of an appeal to the Minister would be in such a case. In the original Section 13 the manager was given absolute control and full supervision of all officers. The word "absolute" was deleted, but the intention is there still. Now, if you give over to a manager, whom in the first instance this House appoints, the absolute control of the doings and activities of the officers of the Corporation, many of whom have long and responsible service, who are more experienced in the work of local government than the present manager—and this must be almost certain to be repeated in respect of future managerships—the position of those servants is a very, very unsatisfactory one. They have no right of appeal from the arbitrary action of the manager to the body whom they serve. The Minister says there is right of appeal to the Minister, but the Minister drafted the Bill which gives to that manager absolute control. He is going to make provisions in regulations. These regulations will be drafted in the spirit of the word "absolute," and I want to protect the officers of the Corporation against the possibility that a manager, with these absolute powers, is going to use them in an arbitrary fashion, unjustly towards the servants of the Corporation. I think that is a reasonable proposition. I do not think the officers of the Corporation are unreasonable in asking that they should be protected, at least in this way, against the possibility of such injustice or arbitrary action.

Mr. JAMESON

I wonder if the Minister could tell us if the real object of this Bill is not to take care that the business of Cork city is run by one competent man, and that all political influences of every description are to be removed. Is not the real danger of the amendment that it gives the right of appeal to a political body, or a body that is capable of political influences? If we being again to give a new life to political influence as against a manager, a man who must be of very high calibre, who, in any ordinary business, would be given control of the whole thing, then surely we would be perpetuating the thing that the Bill is designed to eliminate. I am only talking as an individual. That is the way I look at the matter. I look upon the amendment as giving individuals working under the general manager a right of appeal to a body that could be influenced by political considerations to do certain things. That would seem to me to weaken the whole Bill. If you are going to appoint a bad manager, tyrants and all sorts of things——

Mr. O'FARRELL

On a point of order, I do not like interrupting Senator Jameson, but I take it it is a rule that when the mover of an amendment has replied the discussion is closed.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That ought to be so in the ordinary course.

Mr. JOHNSON

I will supplement my reply by asking Senator Jameson a question.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think we cannot go any further with it now.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am supposed to have the last word, and I only want to say this: the body that appoints the manager is going to be at least as political as the Council.

Mr. DOWDALL

It would not always be the same body.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. MILROY

I move:—

"Section 10, sub-section (6).— After the word ‘as' in line 8, to delete the words ‘the Council with the sanction of' inserted in Committee."

The section as passed by the Dáil provided that the remuneration of the manager should be such as the Minister shall from time to time determine. The amendment passed in the Seanad in Committee provided that the amount should be determined by the Council with the sanction of the Minister. Now that makes a very material consideration, and one which I am sure that at least Senator Johnson was not fully cognisant of when he moved the amendment, because in doing so he used the words: "The Council should have at least a voice in what the salary of the manager might be and to prevent the Council making a fool of itself and paying either too little or too much the Minister will have the right to veto." As far as I can see, the only veto left with the Minister under the Section, as amended by Senator Johnson's amendment, is that he will have power, if he considers the remuneration high, to veto it. But, where the Council fixes inadequate remuneration the section, as altered by Senator Johnson's amendment, gives the Minister no effective remedy. The deletion of these words that were inserted in Committee and giving the Minister the power that was originally assigned him is not investing him with any new powers. In regard to many services the Minister already has full power to decide the remuneration of officers.

For the information of those who have not studied the matter closely I would like to call attention to a few sections of various Acts. Section 31 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838, gives him such power in regard to officers concerned in the administration of poor relief. Section 8, Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1851, gives him the power in regard to all medical officers of dispensary districts. The latter section is extended by Section 21 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, so as to apply in the case of all sanitary officers, including the County Medical Officer of Health. By Section 15 of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, the Minister is enabled by order to acquire in regard to any officer powers similar to those which he has in regard to the remuneration of officers of Boards of Guardians under Section 31 Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838. That section has been applied by the Local Offices and Employments Orders, 1924, to practically every office except those of minor importance by the Order issued in 1924. The effect, it appears, of the amendment inserted in Committee is this: that a specific provision in an Act of this kind passed after the Act of 1923 would be taken as overriding the provisions of the latter Act, so as to prevent the Minister from himself determining a salary which the new Act expressly requires to be determined by the Council. Under the amended section, therefore, the Minister's power to fix the manager's remuneration certainly ceases when the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, ceases to be in force and almost certainly does not exist even under that Act if this section passes.

I referred in the beginning to Senator Johnson's statement in moving the amendment that the Minister should have power to veto, if the Council make a fool of themselves, by paying either too little or too much, and it appears if this section as amended in Committee stands, it would only be in the case of the payment of too much that the Minister would have power to act, and that unless and until that situation would arise the Minister would be powerless to secure that adequate remuneration would be paid to the manager. I think that there is an opinion in existence, which is becoming more and more articulate, that seems to consider that while the services of public servants should be rigorously exacting, the remuneration should be merely nominal. That opinion seems to be very much in existence at the present time. I have before me a couple of cases where the remuneration of public servants was deemed by the Minister to be inadequate, and where the public bodies concerned disagreed with the Minister. I am not going to argue which was right or which was wrong, but I say that it is conceivable that in matters of this kind the public bodies might be wrong, and might fix salaries or remuneration which were inadequate for the positions, and for the duties of the officials. Under the circumstances, where such an inadequate scale of remuneration was decided on, it is right and equitable that the Minister should have power to veto the action of the Councils concerned. I do not like mentioning cases, but there are a couple of specific ones in which this matter has been recently brought to a very definite issue between the public bodies and the Department. Members of public bodies are not immune from certain human weaknesses, and it is quite possible that, for political or other reasons, they might be actuated by niggardly ideas with regard to the remuneration of their servants, and on the idea that it would be popular and secure strong support at some impending elections they might attempt to insist upon an inadequate remuneration to the official concerned, and it would certainly be bad, at this first attempt at setting up city management the success of this scheme, which has met with commendation from practically every section of the Oireachtas as a great step which is deserving of the support of the whole community, to risk the success of such a scheme by not making provision for the contingencies that I have referred to, and which almost are bound to arise, if the section as amended in Committee is not revised now. For these reasons I move the amendment.

Mr. DOWDALL

I second the amendment. It would be idle to pretend that there are not a great many in various districts who sincerely wish that this experiment in city management might fail. This Bill, which makes Cork city one electoral area, to some extent minimises the chances of such men being returned; but, unfortunately, all over this country the apathy of the electors in not going to the poll for the election of councillors is very widespread, and has been the cause of a great deal of evil. If sufficient interest were taken in the discharge of the duties, possibly it would not be necessary to have a City Management Bill at all. But the condition of affairs is such that the number of electors that normally go to the poll gives the nominal title of elected representatives to those people who in actual fact are not representatives of the people at all. Those people who were really the cause of a good many of the abuses which it is sought to remedy now sincerely hope this experiment will be a failure. For that reason I see the force of what Senator Milroy says, that they would put every obstacle in the way of fixing the proper remuneration of a good man, whereas a man who was independent and who really worked as he saw fit and proper in the interests of the duty with which he was charged might not get such remuneration as his services would entitle him to. I think, if the House saw the importance of the amendment at the time, that it would not have passed it. I support Senator Milroy's amendment, which proposes to delete what was inserted in the Bill in Committee.

Mr. FARREN

I must say that I was somewhat disappointed at the manner in which Senator Milroy moved his amendment. He gave us a lot of arguments as to why the Minister should have certain powers, forgetting at the same time that the Minister already has those powers. He did not deal with the question at issue in the amendment at all. He deliberately refused to deal with the principle embodied in that amendment. The Senator's amendment means exactly this, that it wants the House to take out from the Bill the important amendment inserted in it on the Committee Stage. The effect of that amendment was that the remuneration to be paid to the City Manager was to be fixed by the Council, with the consent of the Minister, but there was no suggestion in it that the powers already vested in the Minister, and which are being exercised every day as occasion demands, should be taken away from him. What was maintained in the amendment inserted on the Committee Stage was that a body of people who were ratepayers themselves, as well as being the representatives of the ratepayers, people with an understanding of local conditions, should be allowed to say when a City Manager was being appointed that, in their opinion, the position was worth a certain salary. If it were found after one, two or three years that the man holding the position was rendering great service to the Council, and that the Council wished to mark their appreciation of his abilities, who would be in a better position to judge of that than the people on the spot? Surely they ought to be as good judges of his capabilities and of his administrative powers as the Minister sitting in the Local Government Department in the Custom House in Dublin.

The elected representatives of the people ought to be entitled to say to the Minister "we believe that the City Manager is entitled to increased remuneration for the services that he is rendering. We are ratepayers ourselves and representatives of the ratepayers who will have to pay him." That was all that the amendment inserted in Committee asked. It does not make it mandatory that the Council shall fix the salary, and that that shall be the last word. Senator Milroy went back almost to the time of the flood for his authorities. In the Act of 1838 the Minister already possesses the powers referred to by the Senator. The Minister got enlarged powers under the Act of 1923. What is proposed here is, that when the Council is fixing the remuneration to be paid, in this case to the City Manager, they shall make a recommendation to the Minister that the person occupying the position be paid a certain salary, and they have to get the consent of the Minister to pay that salary. That is all that the amendment inserted in Committee asks. If the salary fixed by the Council is considered by the Minister too large or too small, the Minister has ample power to say it is not sufficient or that it is more than enough. I have not looked up the authorities, but I am satisfied that the Minister has that power, and that he is exercising it every day. All that the amendment inserted in Committee asks for is that there ought to be some semblance of authority left to the elected representatives, representatives who are ratepayers themselves. I hope that the House will not stultify itself by going back on the amendment which it inserted on the Committee Stage. No case has been made against it.

Mr. JAMESON

I was one of those who voted for Senator Johnson's amendment when it was before the House in Committee. The point that now strikes me in connection with what Senator Milroy has said is that the position is not what Senator Farren seems to think it is—that the Minister has power to deal with the salary to be paid to the City Manager. We have been told that if the amendment passed on the Committee Stage is left in that the Minister will not have the power to stop a reduction in salary by the Council.

Mr. FARREN

The amendment states "with the consent of the Minister."

Mr. JAMESON

I think Senator Milroy told us that if the amendment passed in Committee is not deleted the Minister will be unable to prevent a reduction of salary by the Council. The position that we are face to face with is this: that though the Minister thinks the salary is not a sufficient one to secure the right kind of man for the work to be done, he will be unable to stop a reduction in the salary if we leave that amendment of ours in. I would ask the Minister, when replying, to say whether that is so or not, because it is quite evident, if the Council can reduce the salary so as to prevent a right man being properly paid, then our amendment is not going to work in the way that we thought it was going to work.

Sir JOHN KEANE

The question is: who is to govern the City of Cork? Is it the City Council or the Minister? It is, to my mind, a farce to set up a Council and not allow it to have a word to say as regards the salary of its chief officer. I have no great confidence in the ability of these local bodies, but I thing it is humbug to set them up and give them totally inadequate powers, to keep them bottled up in every way and keep them as a sort of figurehead, a sort of lip-service to representative government with no real essential power.

General MULCAHY

I am afraid I could not undertake to reconcile the views of Senator Farren with those of Senator Sir John Keane. Senator Farren wants the position to be this, that the local body shall have power to make suggestions but that the Minister can fix the salary.

Mr. FARREN

I have stated that the amendment inserted in Committee set out that the Council shall, with the consent of the Minister, fix the salary.

General MULCAHY

The legal position, therefore, would be this: to give power to the Council to suggest what salary should be paid, but that the power of fixing the salary ultimately should rest with the Minister. Senator Sir John Keane wants the local body to fix the salary and that the Minister shall not have anything to say to the matter. The position is as Senator Jameson suggests. I am not administering any Act in which it is said that the remuneration of certain officers shall be fixed by the Council with the sanction of the Minister. Acts that do give me power to override a local body, where they do fix the salaries, are framed in quite different words. I am informed that if this amendment remains, that while I can refuse sanction to the payment of a salary that I do not agree with because it is too low, I cannot effectively secure that a high salary shall be paid, even though I consider that a high salary should be paid.

Senator Farren has argued against dropping the amendment which, as Senator Jameson has pointed out, was put in owing to a misunderstanding on the Committee Stage. Power is not taken from the local body of suggesting to the Minister that such a salary shall be paid, but to remove friction arising in the relations between the Department and the local bodies what is prevented is this—making it possible for the local body to pass a resolution saying that the salary of the Manager shall be X pounds, and that when the Minister says the salary shall be X plus £100 the local body can turn around and say: "We will not accept that; we have passed a resolution that says X pounds shall be paid to this Manager, and it requires a majority of two-thirds of the Council to rescind that resolution, and we cannot get that majority. The Minister can go along and take out an order of mandamus against us and force us in that particular way." If the power which rests in the hands of the Minister of fixing an adequate salary, where for one reason or another a low salary is fixed for a responsible officer, was taken away, then you cannot have the type of person that should be appointed a City Manager. The City Manager would be prejudiced by the fixing of a low salary by the Council where the Minister had no say in the matter, while the relations between the Manager and the Council would be prejudiced by a state of affairs in which you had differences arising between the Minister and the local body as to the form of the resolution adopted by the local body. The deletion of the amendment inserted in Committee would give the Minister the power that he has with regard to any other officer of a local body, to fix a salary, but it does not take away from the Council of the City of Cork any power of suggestion that they might wish to put forward.

Mr. JOHNSON

I ask the Seanad to read the section as amended before and form their own conclusions. "There shall be paid by the Council to the Manager such remuneration as the Council, with the consent of the Minister, shall from time to time determine." That is what is in the Bill at the present moment, and that is what the Seanad decided, on the advice of Senators Brown, Jameson and other Senators. Surely it is clearly a case of either giving the Council such powers as those or of abandoning the Council altogether. This is merely a matter of pretence. If we are going to set up a Council presumed to have certain authority, and not to give it authority, and if the question of the remuneration of the Manager is to be taken entirely out of the hands of the Council, I suggest that it would be far wiser to abandon the notion of the Council altogether. I dare say that will satisfy the Minister, but I think it would be much more honest to the community if that were done than to pretend to give power with one hand and really to deprive them of power, except ornamental power, with the other.

Mr. DOWDALL

On a point of order. does not every Senator know that the whole financial power is vested in the-Council, and that is the only reservation put into the Bill?

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is not a point of order.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Senator who moved this motion referred us to a certain number of Acts and to certain powers which the Minister has under the poor laws. This purports to be an Act setting up a new form of Corporation, a City Manager to administer the work of a municipal body. I think that differentiates it from the poor law system. He also referred, and I ask the House to take note of this, to the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1923, and the powers that were given in that Act to the Minister to do anything he wished by order. They were simply temporary provisions. We are now asked to take this as a guide, the governing authority. These temporary provisions are to be the test by which we are to legislate in the future. Some of us have been reminded of the powers that have been given in recent legislation, not only in Ireland previous to the Treaty which covered Ireland, to Ministers to legislate by order. I think that probably the most outrageous example of that method of governing was the legislation which was introduced in this 1923 Temporary Provisions Act which was to cover over certain difficulties that arose during the war period in this country and which it was absolutely necessary temporarily to pass. It has never yet been annulled, and it is still temporary, but surely we are not going to take that as a guide for permanent future legislation. No doubt the Minister has enormous power. As a matter of fact he need not have brought in this Bill at all. He could do anything that he proposes to do under this Bill by order if he wished. I wonder sometimes when I hear him speak why he does not do these things by order.

I now ask the House to stand by its earlier decision and to insist that the Council shall have the power to fix the remuneration of the Manager with the sanction of the Minister. If he refuses sanction it is not fixed, and the real effect of that is that there will, within certain limits, if the Minister will consider it fair, be power in the hands of the Council to decide what shall be the remuneration of the Manager whom they pay. Bear in mind that this is not a case where the payment of the Manager comes out of the funds of the National Exchequer. The Manager is to be paid by the Council. Senator Dowdall calls attention to the fact that the powers over local finance are the powers of the Council, but are you going to allow the Council to exercise power in the case of the Manager? That is the real point that I want to insist upon, that some of the powers in regard to the Manager should remain with the Council. If the City Manager is not to be a real boss in Cork, Dublin, Waterford or Limerick, as he will be under the provisions of the Bill, then you must make some attempt to modify his powers in relation to the Council.

Mr. GUINNESS

I do not quite know where we are now. As I understand it, Senator Milroy is anxious to delete from the Bill, as amended in Committee, a certain amendment which was then passed. In the Bill, as it originally stood, the Minister had the power to fix the salary of the Manager. If, therefore, you revert to the old Bill, which would be doing what Senator Milroy is anxious to do, then the payment of this Manager would be entirely in the hands of the Council.

CATHAOIRLEACH

No, it is the other way around.

Mr. GUINNESS

In the one case it would be in the hands of the Council, and in the other in the hands of the Minister. I would like to know from the Minister which of the two propositions he is in favour of. I do not think that he has told us. As I understand the position, and as has been explained to us by Senator Jameson, if Senator Johnson's amendment passed on the Committee Stage remains, the Minister will have power to accept a recommendation from the Council where it increases the salary, but if the salary is reduced he will have no power. As Senator Jameson has pointed out, that would be putting the Minister in a ridiculous position. I hope the Minister will tell us which of the two propositions he would like the House to accept.

General MULCAHY

What I would like to see accepted is that sub-section (6) of Section 10 would stand as it is on the green paper: that there shall be paid by the Council to the Manager such remuneration as the Minister shall from time to time determine. If the amendment is allowed to remain the legal effect of it will be that the Council will have complete power, and that the Minister cannot fix a salary higher than the Council want it, if the Minister so desires. I want to correct a point made by Senator Johnson. It is not a fact that the Council will pay the full salary of the Manager. The State will pay part of the Manager's salary.

Mr. GUINNESS

May I take it then that the Minister is in favour of Senator Milroy's amendment?

General MULCAHY

Yes.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 17.

Tá

• John Bagwell.
• Alfred Byrne.
• Mrs. Costello.
• The Countess of Desart.
• J.C. Dowdall.
• Michael Fanning.
• Sir John Purser Griffith.
• Henry S. Guinness.
• P.J. Hooper.
• Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
• Cornelius Kennedy.
• Patrick W. Kenny.
• Thomas Linehan.
• The McGillycuddy.
• James MacKean.
• John MacLoughlin.
• Seán Milroy.
• Joseph O'Connor.
• Bernard O'Rourke.
• Dr. William O'Sullivan.
• James J. Parkinson.
• Thomas Toal.
• Richard Wilson.

Níl

• Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
• Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
• Michael Comyn, K.C.
• Joseph Connolly.
• James G. Douglas.
• Michael Duffy.
• Thomas Farren.
• Thomas Foran.
• Thomas Johnson.
• Sir John Keane.
• Seán E. MacEllin.
• Colonel Moore.
• Joseph O'Doherty.
• John T. O'Farrell.
• Michael F. O'Hanlon.
• Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
• Séumas Robinson.

Amendment declared carried.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move Amendment 4: Section 14. Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(2) Whenever a responsible officer of the Corporation as defined in Section 61, sub-section (1) of the Local Government Act, 1925, makes an objection

(a) to the doing of any act, matter or thing by the Manager in consequence of which an illegal payment is to be made out of the funds of the Corporation or a deficiency or loss is likely to result in or to such funds, or

(b) to the doing of any act, matter or thing by the Manager on the ground that it is ultra vires or otherwise illegal,

the Manager shall cause to be prepared and furnished to the Lord Mayor forthwith and to each member of the Council within fourteen days particulars of such objection."

This is another attempt to safeguard the position of the officers of the Corporation. I confess that I prefer this method to that which I sought for in Amendment No. 2. Under the Local Government Act of 1925 provision is made that, "whenever a proposal is made at a meeting of a local authority to do any act, matter, or thing in consequence of which an illegal payment is to be made out of the funds of the local authority, or a deficiency or loss is likely to result in or to such funds, it shall be the duty of the responsible officer of the local authority to make objection to the doing of such act, matter or thing, and to state the grounds of such objection," and so on.

The responsible officer referred to means the secretary, clerk, resident medical superintendent or other chief executive officer at the meeting. The amendment is to throw upon such responsible officer who may be the treasurer, town clerk or surveyor, who is aware of a proposal or an intention on the part of the Manager to do something which, in his opinion, is ultra vires or illegal, the responsibility of making his objection to the Manager just as he would have done in the case of a Council, and that such an objection having been made shall be made known to the Lord Mayor and to the members of the Council. If such a provision as this is not inserted in the Bill it appears to me that in view of the relations between the Manager and the other officials he is absolute. Notwithstanding the deletion of the words "authority over these officers," they will have no right to make known to the Council the Manager is in the way of doing something which is illegal, or beyond his power, and there is incumbent on each of such officers of the Corporation the duty of informing somebody that the Manager is exceeding his authority or doing something which may involve the Council in liabilities to which they ought not to be subjected.

The object of this amendment is clearly to ensure that if a responsible officer by virtue of the duty thrust upon him in the 1925 Act has to inform the Council he will continue to perform that duty by informing the Manager, and if in doing so, and when doing so, he shall also acquaint the Lord Mayor with the fact that the Manager has done or is about to do something which in the opinion of this responsible officer is illegal and beyond his authority. I think it is due to the Council that they should be aware of the fact that they may be involved in liabilities through the indiscretion, or perhaps ignorant misuse of his powers, or perhaps obstinacy of the Manager, and the Lord Mayor should have the right to know when any responsible officer has that objection to an action of the Manager. Do not forget that under the Bill these officers are entirely subordinate to the Manager, and yet they are carrying out certain statutory duties. They have statutory obligations, and this Bill may be said, possibly, to over-ride their statutory obligations. Whether that is so or not I am not lawyer enough to say, but at any rate the relationship between the Manager and the town clerk and the city engineer is one of master and servant, and the servant is bound to obey the master. I wish it to be made clear in the Act that if the servant is aware the master is doing something beyond his authority, or contemplates doing something beyond his authority, which is likely to lead to illegal expenditure, the Council and the Lord Mayor shall be acquainted of the fact that the responsible officer has put in such an objection.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I second.

General MULCAHY

Sub-section (1) of Section 61 in the Local Government Act of 1925, to which Senator Johnson referred, deals with the relationship of the clerk to the council when the Council is considering matters at their meeting. Members may not be conversant with the work of the Council or the regulations that control matters and should guide them in taking decisions. It was found very often decisions were taken inadvertently by councils that gave rise to expenditure that was not statutorily correct, and therefore the councils rendered themselves liable to surcharges by the auditor when their actions came to be reviewed. The section quoted by Senator Johnson puts the onus on the secretary, or principal responsible officer attending the meeting, to draw the attention of the Council to the fact when they propose to do anything illegal that relieved the Council of the responsibility that fell on them, and which they were not completely equipped to deal with, and placed the responsibility on the shoulders of a paid official to keep the Council right regarding what they were going to do. The Manager is different from that point of view, being a responsible officer versed in matters and with a thorough knowledge of what he is doing, and of the statutes and regulations. It is proposed in the amendment that it shall be possible for the Manager to shed some of that responsibility on to the town clerk, so that he could say: "When I was doing that the town clerk did not tell me that I could not do it." The Manager, in every act he does, is the responsible officer, and to pass such an amendment as Senator Johnson proposes is to diffuse responsibility, and that is undesirable. The Manager must be completely responsible for his actions in so far as he may take actions that bring him under the ban of the auditor.

In so far as the suggestion is made that the Manager may be doing things which the Council ought not to allow him to do, the proposal is that everyone of the subordinate officers would be in the position of setting himself up in judgment as to whether the things proposed to be carried out by the Manager were ultra vires or not. The Manager is shouldering a big responsibility and he should be made answerable for that responsibility in a complete way. The whole work of his management is a thing he must stand over, and if there are any illegal actions he has taken at particular times he shall be answerable for them in due course. To twist a section such as that which was brought in for the protection of an ordinary lay council in such a way as to put the Manager in the position of a lay council by saying he was not completely responsible for his acts would be to undermine his responsibility, and to create a certain amount of irresponsibility about whether there was negligence and where responsibility lies.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

Is the Manager in Cork City to be liable to surcharge in case he does something that is ultra vires?

General MULCAHY

The Manager is certainly liable to surcharge.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

Then I agree so.

Mr. GUINNESS

Senator Johnson seems to me to be down on the Manager, to use a common expression. If the amendment is carried I can conceive a situation where the Manager would be surrounded by an army of detectives. All his officers would be there to report on his acts and his position would be an impossible one.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is scarcely the position.

Mr. GUINNESS

As I understand, any official would have the power to report practically any action of the Manager to the Council, or to the Lord Mayor representing the Council. If that is not tell tale, to use a schoolboy expression, or detective service, I do not know what it could be called. As I have said, I think it would put the Manager in an impossible position in relation to the Council.

Colonel MOORE

I think it is very necessary to protect members attending a meeting of a council. Farmers and others cannot be expected always to know whether a thing is ultra vires or not, and I think it is necessary that they should be informed.

CATHAOIRLEACH

This is dealing with the Manager and not the Council.

Colonel MOORE

I know. It is necessary in my opinion that the Manager should inform them what the law is in matters. If there is something about to be done which is irregular the Manager should inform himself as to that, and should get some legal person to inform the Council as to whether the matter proposed is legal or not. I think it is important that should be so. A Senator has made an appeal to the Minister to state his opinion on this matter. It seems to me that the Senator has no opinion of his own, but follows the opinion of the Minister, so that the Minister is not only the dictator of the Cork Council, but the dictator of the Seanad. That is an extraordinary position.

Mr. JAMESON

The Senator is trying to have it specified that the Manager is to take legal opinion and forward it to the council. It would be for the Lord Mayor or the Council if they want to take legal opinion, but there is no question of the Manager wanting to take legal opinion. That is my reading of the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister has tried to dilute the value of the section, but in the 1925 Act it is merely to protect an innocent councillor by giving him advice as to when he was inadvertently going to do something illegal, and to make the Council responsible if in spite of that advice they were prepared to vote for a particular proposition, so that they would be liable and make them pay any surcharge that may arise. We have not been told whether this Act overrides the Local Government Act of 1925 or not. Are we to understand that it will no longer be the responsibility of the principal officer, the city accountant, the city treasurer, the city surveyor, or whatever his position may be, to inform the Manager, who is taking the place of the Council, that he is about to do an illegal act? Is there no more responsibility, and can we have it quite definite that any legal liability there is at present on these high officers is nullified by this Act? I do not think that is so. There is still liability on the officers to prevent an illegal act being done, as far as they can do so, and they should inform the City Manager when he is about to do an illegal act. Let us assume that is possible——

Mr. DOUGLAS

Is it so—that they have responsibility to the Minister?

General MULCAHY

No. They have no responsibility outside of that defined in Section 61 of the 1925 Act.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is to say, they have responsibility to inform the Manager he is about to do an illegal act?

General MULCAHY

No.

Mr. JOHNSON

Have they responsibility or not?

General MULCAHY

They have not.

Mr. JOHNSON

Where is that annulled in this Bill?

General MULCAHY

I refer the Senator to sub-section (1) of Section 61 in the 1925 Act. "The expression ‘responsible officer of a local authority' means in relation to any meeting of such local authority, the secretary, clerk, resident medical superintendent, or other chief executive officer of such local authority if he is present at such meeting, or in case such secretary, clerk, superintendent, or chief executive officer is not present at such meeting, any other officer of such local authority acting in his stead at such meeting." Notwithstanding the amendment put down by Senator Johnson, there is no such thing as a responsible officer except at a meeting. The Manager will not do his work at meetings in so far as he is responsible for a certain part of the Corporation work.

Mr. JOHNSON

That does not go very far. Certain responsible officers of the local authority have statutory responsibility. Are these annulled by this Act? I am advised that a medical officer of health has certain statutory liabilities, and the city treasurer has certain statutory liabilities. Are those annulled by this Bill in respect of the City of Cork? If they are still liable under the statute, and the City Manager orders them to do certain things which they say are beyond their authority and illegal, I want to protect those officers. The Council will ultimately have to pay, for talk of a surcharge means nothing. If the Council are left liable to pay £10,000, and the Manager's whole worldly possessions amount to £5,000, the Council will have to bear the loss of £5,000. When we speak of liability to surcharge it may be very important in respect of the personal feelings of the man, but it does not relieve the Corporation of ultimate liability. If this Bill removes all statutory responsibilities from these high officers of the Corporation, then there is nothing in my amendment, but if those liabilities still lie with them, then I want to make it clear that once they have put down their objections to certain actions, that the Council should know of the fact that they may be led into very heavy liabilities, and, on the other hand, that the officers have discharged their duty and are no longer responsible.

General MULCAHY

Perhaps the Senator would come down to definite details and show us where in this Bill any statutory obligation resting on a particular officer is interfered with in any particular way. As far as I am concerned there is no officer at present bearing statutory responsibility who does not still retain that statutory responsibility. Section 14 says that the officers and servants shall perform their duties as set out in accordance with the directions of the Manager. Where in the amendment is there anything bearing on the carrying out of a responsible officer's work in any other way than that under Section 61 here, according to which responsibility rests upon the officer only by reason of the fact that he is attending a meeting of the local body?

Mr. COMYN

May I ask the Minister where he finds that the Manager is liable to surcharge?

General MULCAHY

The Manager is an officer of the Corporation or council, and by reason of that he is liable to surcharge.

Mr. COMYN

You do not find that in the Bill.

General MULCAHY

It is not specifically stated as regards the Manager, but it is specifically stated he is an officer.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

Would an officer in a department, if the money was mis-spent, be still liable as well as the Manager?

General MULCAHY

Only in case of gross negligence on his part. If the Manager accepts responsibility and orders a thing to be done, then he is completely responsible, but if in anything ordered by the Manager there was gross negligence on the part of the officer he could not be excused.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

Is an official bound to warn the Manager he is doing something for which he may be liable to surcharge?

General MULCAHY

No.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

If he does not do it he is liable?

General MULCAHY

No. Responsibility rests upon the officers within the terms of Section 61 of the Act of 1925.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

The Manager is the only one who can be surcharged?

General MULCAHY

Where the Manager acts in respect of his own duty he will act on his own responsibility. The Manager will attend meetings of the Council, but it is not there the Manager's work will be done.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Council will be quite ignorant of the fact the Manager is doing an illegal act.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move:—

Section 15. Before sub-section (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(4) At the beginning of every month the Manager shall furnish to each member of the Council copies of every order made under this Section during the previous month."

This matter was discussed in a slightly different form in Committee. It is sought to ensure that the Council shall have some powers and some responsibilities and shall be equipped with the material necessary to fulfil such responsibilities. The objection was made on the last occasion that to give the Council information as to what the Manager was doing would mean a volume, that the printing bill would be increased, and that therefore it was better that this should not be done. The Council, in fact, can trust the Manager; the Manager is going to do all things rightly and properly and need not have any fear of interference by the Council, and therefore it is better the Council should not be made aware of what the Manager is doing. That more or less was the case made against the insertion of the amendment on the last occasion. Now what is it is sought? In Section 15 sub-section (1) it is provided that every act or thing done and every decision taken by the Manager in respect to matters which, under the existing system would have to be done or taken by resolution of such Council, shall be done or taken by the Manager by a signed order. The amendment seeks to secure that every such action that will have to be done under the present law by resolution of the Council, in fact the more important acts of the Manager, will be made known monthly to members. It seems to me that that is the least we could expect to be done. If people are to meet and discuss matters and to be aware of what is happening leading up to the fixing of the rate, the members of the Council at least should be periodically informed of the course of events, of what the Manager is doing, and in particular the important things which have to be decided by resolution of the Council. I find that at the present time the Commissioners who act for the Dublin Corporation, even though there are only three of them, receive printed copies of the proceedings. Apparently it is not thought an exceptionally heavy liability to circulate and print three copies for the edification of the Commissioners and to enable them to carry on the business of the Corporation. If that is found possible and desirable in the case of the City Commissioners in Dublin surely it ought to be required that members of the Council of the city of Cork should be made aware in a similar fashion of the events of the previous month, of the decisions taken by the Manager in respect of all those matters which, under the present law, are required to be taken by resolution of the Council. It is a simple thing but it seems to me important if you are going to expect of the Council reasonable and reasoned attention to the business of the Corporation. If you only expect them to go there once a year and fix the rates as advised by the Manager then nothing need be said, but if the members are really to take an intelligent interest in the work of the city they ought to be advised periodically of the decisions of the Manager, and that is all that is sought to be secured by the present amendment.

Mr. FARREN

I second.

Mr. DOWDALL

This is not a very important matter, but I am rather opposed to the amendment, because it will necessitate an amount of expense and trouble, and will produce results not at all commensurate with the expense and trouble. Do we not all know, who are members of any public body or members of the Dáil or Seanad, that we receive an amount of printed matter which, in three cases out of four, is thrown aside and never even looked at. Anybody who wants to know anything that was done by the Manager can do so under this Bill. That is provided for in the Bill. The amendment says:—

"At the beginning of every month the Manager shall furnish to each member of the Council copies of every order made under this section during the previous month."

The Bill says:—

"Every act or thing done and every decision taken by the Manager for the purpose of or in connection with the exercise or performance by him under this Act of any of the powers, functions, or duties," etc.

Mr. JOHNSON

The etcetera is the important part.

Mr. DOWDALL

Senators can read it for themselves. I will come down to the real matter dealing with the amendment. Sub-section (3) says:—

"The town clerk shall keep in the prescribed form a register or registers in which he shall enter or cause to be entered a copy of every order made under this section by the Manager, and a record of the time when such order was so made, and the said register or registers shall be produced by the town clerk at every meeting of the Council for the inspection of the members thereof."

Accordingly any councillor who is interested in any or all of the matters done by the Manager during the month has ample access to a record. What more is wanted? If a person will not go to the trouble to take that precaution he certainly will not look at printed matter and circulars.

Mr. FARREN

Is it too much to ask that the same procedure should be followed under the Cork City Management system as is being carried out in Dublin under the Commissioner system? As far as I understand it, the object of Senator Johnson's amendment is to furnish to the members of the Corporation information with regard to procedure and the carrying out of the business of the city. I have here reports that are printed by the Commissioners in Dublin and that are circulated. There are three Commissioners in Dublin. The Commissioner in charge of each department prepares a report which is printed and circulated to the other two Commissioners informing them what is being done in his department. In the old days there were printed reports of the Corporation, and each Committee of the Corporation issued a quarterly breviate indicating the work performed. I see that practically the same procedure is adopted by the City Commissioners. These reports might simply state that contracts have been placed, for instance, for tar macadam at such a figure. It is not too much to ask that the people who are elected on behalf of the ratepayers of Cork or any other city to act as their custodians should be furnished with these reports so that they could see how the business of the city is being carried on, and that they should know something about the work of the Manager. Surely it is not good enough that they should attend meetings, hear reports from the City Manager about certain matters, and discuss whether a certain housing scheme should be carried out, whether a drainage system should be extended to a certain area or a water supply given to another area. Surely it is not too much to ask that a breviate should be printed and circulated. That is what Senator Johnson has in mind. I have a printed report here indicating the work done in the Public Lighting Department, showing that 2,272 fitters' reports were attended to. Senator Johnson is not asking for anything more than that. That is the purport of the amendment, and I think it ought to be passed.

General MULCAHY

The position of the Commissioners in Dublin is that they are carrying on the continuity of the system that existed when the Corporation was there. It is not accepted by the Commissioners and cannot be accepted by them until the Bill dealing with Greater Dublin is passed, that a different class of machinery is going to supersede that, and the continuity of everything that went on before as far as the keeping of records is concerned is preserved.

Mr. FARREN

By printing?

General MULCAHY

I could not say why it has to be printed, but, in so far as the form and the matter is concerned, it is being continued. What we do not want to do in the Cork Bill is, by statute, to hang around the neck of either the Cork Council or the Manager an unnecessary amount of printing, an unnecessary amount of circulation of documents. I suppose no one can hope that the new arrangement in Cork will not provide a certain amount of wastepaper baskets and of waste paper, but, in so far as that can be avoided, the work of both the Council and the Manager will be better done. It is clear that there will not be the same voluminous amount of matter to be provided for under the new arrangement as there is at present in Dublin. I believe a lot of it is unnecessary. Under the arrangement in Section 11, the Council will be able to get the information required. They will receive documents relating to their own particular class of work, but this is making a statutory provision by which a certain amount of very detailed matter shall be circulated, that nobody is quite clear serves any particularly useful service. I do not know what particular useful purpose it might serve to have new members of the Cork Council receiving, whether they wished it or not, what Senator Farren thinks is good for them to receive, and to know that certain thousands of matters were attended to. I suggest to the Seanad that under the provisions by which orders are available for inspection at meetings, by which, under Section 11,

"the Manager shall, whenever requested by the Lord Mayor so to do, provide all information as may be in his possession,"

that in the working out of the arrangement between the Council and Manager there is provision by which all the information desired by the Council can be obtained in the most suitable form.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister has confounded the Lord Mayor with the Council. I can quite conceive the Lord Mayor and the Manager being very friendly and in collusion to deprive the Council of information. If you are going to give the Council any authority at all, surely they have a right to receive the information requisite to enable them to carry on their business. Senator Dowdall talked about a man having sufficient interest in the matter going to the register and finding out what was done. Of course such a man would do so if he was sufficiently interested or if he was intensely interested. But supposing he is only normally interested, say as much as a Senator here would be interested in the work of the Oireachtas. How often do we look at the papers that are laid on the Table? I have asked that question before. We know that we do not read these papers because they are not sent to us. If they are sent to us there is a definite responsibility lying on us. If you are going to make the members of the Corporation realise that they have undertaken responsible duties, then at least they ought to be equipped with the materials to enable them to carry out those duties. There is a provision in Section 11 to which one might apply, if one accepts the argument of Senator Dowdall, just the same statement:

at the beginning of every month the Manager should cause to be prepared and shall furnish to the Lord Mayor a statement showing as nearly as may be the actual financial position of the Corporation at the end of the previous month.

That is a very necessary proposition, but on Senator Dowdall's proposition the Lord Mayor might have been required to go to the register or go to the accountant to find out. Here we have a definite provision that he shall be furnished with the information. I think the members of the Council should also be furnished with the information requisite to enable them to carry on the business intelligently. They cannot do that if you are going to leave it to the option of the Manager to do so if he wished, or if he is content to do it. I think the result is that you place the Manager in a position of superiority in relation to the Council, and that is a primary evil that you cannot very well get over. In this amendment we will do something to get over that evil, if we throw on individual members of the Council the liability of taking an intelligent interest in the Council, which the provision of the information I suggest would ensure. As it is we were going to ask them to be lackadaisical more or less to come up occasionally to formal meetings of the Council, and once a year strike the rate as recommended by the Manager. That is about all you are asking the Council to do.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. MILROY

I move Section 19, sub-section (5):—

After the word "as" in line 66 to delete the words "the Council with the sanction of" inserted in Committee.

CATHAOIRLEACH

This amendment is practically on all fours with one already passed.

Mr. TOAL

I second the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That concludes the Fourth Stage of this Bill.

General MULCAHY

I would like to get the Final Stage of the Bill as soon as possible, and as I do not think that there is anything in the amendments carried that the Dáil will disagree with. If I could get the Bill from the Seanad so as to have it put before the Dáil on Friday, it would enable me to go ahead at once with the arrangements for the election. I am anxious to have the Council working at the earliest possible moment, so that it will have a reasonable period in which to consider the estimates which will be placed before it and yet strike a rate for the coming six months at the earliest possible moment. The rates in Cork are struck in six-monthly periods and, therefore, it is all the more reason why the rate should be considered as early as possible.

Final Stage of the Bill fixed for Thursday, 21st February.