Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Aug 1948

Vol. 35 No. 9

Local Government (Dublin) (Temporary) Bill, 1948—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Murphy)

This Bill arises out of the proposal to hold local elections in County Dublin in a short time. When the new council is elected, one of its duties will be to elect from amongst its members the Dublin Board of Assistance. In the ordinary way there would be no interruption in that course, but for the fact that in St. Kevin's, the centre of the Dublin Board of Assistance, a very important scheme of reorganisation is in progress for a considerable time. In consultation with the Minister for Health, it was decided that the best course to adopt was to continue the arrangements for control of St. Kevin's Institution that are now in force.

There is a commissioner in charge of Dublin Board of Assistance who is an officer of the Local Government Department, and the purpose of this Bill is to continue the arrangement until reorganisation is completed for the limited period mentioned in the Bill. If it is found that the administration is not completed at the end of that time, it is proposed to continue the operations of this Bill by Order, but any Order of the kind would be subject to consideration by the Oireachtas and will be subject to annulment if the Oireachtas so decides.

There is also a section in the Bill which restricts the appointment of permanent assistant county managers in Dublin area. That was considered necessary and desirable in view of proposals now under consideration dealing with the whole question of local government; proposals that have been, to some extent, mentioned already but the outline of which has not yet been settled. This Bill is a purely temporary measure, to allow the process of reorganisation, which is fairly well advanced, and which I hope may be concluded by the date provided in the Bill, to be carried out and to continue the arrangement for that period?

As far as the rights of elected representatives of the people are concerned this Bill does not alter the position. If the election of members of Dublin County Council and the subsequent election of members of the Board of Assistance take place, as is likely, before the new proposals dealing with county managers are given effect to, the position, in fact, will be the same. The elected representatives will take office, and the position that obtains of having certain very important functions reserved to the county managers and assistant county managers, or whoever the appropriate officers be, would be the same. The Bill is purely temporary in character and arises only because of the likelihood of local elections being held in Dublin shortly, for the purpose of continuing an arrangement of the work that is now in progress at St. Kevin's Institution, for a certain period, but I hope not longer than that provided for in the Bill.

Mr. Hawkins

The Minister stated that this Bill arises out of another Bill dealing with local government which was passed some weeks ago. Senators on this side then drew attention to the necessity of bringing in a Bill of this kind. Many of us are aware of the magnificent work being done in the reorganisation of St. Kevin's. Owing to the progress that has been made in that respect, we learn from the Minister that something more has to be done, but he is satisfied, when the reorganisation is completed, that it is proposed to carry on, on much the same lines as at present.

There are one or two points in the Bill that aroused my suspicion. The first is that we heard much condemnation of the managerial system, of the appointment of managers, and the taking of responsibility from local authorities. We heard much in that direction in the past, that people who were appointed managers were there at the behest of the Minister, that they were acting for and on his behalf, whereas the real position was that county managers were, in most cases, appointed because of the fact that they were county secretaries when the Act came into force, and where that was not the case, they were appointed by the Local Appointment Commissioners. The Minister had no function there, and was not in a position to remove, to promote or take any part in their activities.

In this Bill we find a new phrase introduced, that of "executive officer" which, in the ordinary term known in local government administration, might be referred to as "manager". In future, he will be known as "the chief executive officer". It is one and the same thing, He is the chief executive officer. A rose will be just the same, no matter what name we call it. But this person will not be appointed by the Appointments Commissioners. Section 4 (4) reads:—

"(4) The person who, on the day immediately preceding the commencement of this Part, is, by virtue of Part IV of the Local Government Act, 1941 (No. 23 of 1941), the commissioner for the board shall be deemed, as on and from the said commencement, to have been appointed, under sub-section (3) of this section, the chief executive officer."

That is much the same procedure as was gone through in relation to the appointment of county secretaries and county managers. The chief executive officer is to hold office during the pleasure of the Minister and not during the pleasure of the elected representatives of the local authority controlling the board. He is to remain in office so long as he carries out the Minister's wishes.

This is a very strange section to incorporate in the Bill, and especially a Bill introduced by the Minister who is a member of a Party which was outspoken in the past on the question of democratic rights and in their criticism of the managerial system. We now have a proposal by the Minister to continue that system and in what might be described as its very worst form— the maintaining in office of an officer who to all intents and purposes is the manager. He is to hold office during the pleasure of the Minister, which may be a very short or a very long time. The provision in the Bill is of rather short duration and probably is not worth going into in any great detail, but it gives us and people outside a fairly good idea of what we may expect in the future. We are promised an amendment of our local government system, and, if that amended system is to provide that the chief executive officer is to hold office during the pleasure of the Minister, and only so long as the Minister wishes him to remain, the present position is much better than that which we might expect to obtain in the future. I should like to see that section removed from the Bill, so that the chief executive officer may not be removed from office, except for some very good reason. Otherwise he will not be free to carry out any reorganisation scheme except the scheme which he knows is in complete conformity with the Minister's wishes and desires.

Mr. M. Hayes

Senator Hawkins speaks as if there was something in the nature of a conspiracy to alter the managerial system by the sidewind of this Bill. I have great regard for Senator Hawkins. We have heard a great deal from him in recent times, and it seems to me that he is suffering from two things: he is being worked too hard by his colleagues and is reading the Irish Press too constantly and too much. The Irish Press has reduced his well-known intelligence to a state of complete confusion. The chief executive officer, mentioned in Part II, is not a county manager, a city manager or a manager of any type or description.

Mr. Hawkins

I did not say he was.

Mr. M. Hayes

We shall have to adopt my old remedy for the Fianna Fáil Party—we shall all have to learn Irish, because we become very indistinct, very absurd and very confused in English. The Senator said that we were going to get a County Managerial Bill in the near future which would give us county managers like the particular person in this Bill who will hold office during the pleasure of the Minister, which he construes, quite foolishly, as meaning that he must carry out the Minister's wishes. It is not the same thing. This is a temporary measure—it is not an amendment in any shape or form of the managerial Acts—to preserve St. Kevin's Hospital under a particular form of management which was invented by the former Minister and for which Senator Hawkins, when he began, took credit. If there is any credit due to the former Minister or to the Senator, I do not want to take it from him, but what the Bill does is to continue an arrangement existing at present for a limited period, up to 30th June, 1949, and to continue in office an officer of the Department appointed by the Minister to carry out certain functions as a commissioner and not as a manager working with a local body. I hope that is clear.

Mr. Hawkins

He is no longer a commissioner when the Bill has passed.

Mr. M. Hayes

He was appointed as a commissioner?

Mr. Hawkins

Yes.

Mr. M. Hayes

And he is now to be called a chief executive officer. That does not change the position. He was never a manager and is not being made a manager now. His position is not being altered in any way. We are not discussing the individual at all. The particular individual is a rare person—he is a Dublin man who has actually got a job in Dublin, a very rare thing. He is neither a Corkman nor a Galwayman, which is very remarkable, but this provision is not strange or peculiar and is not an innovation in the managerial Acts. There is nothing remarkable about the sub-section which says that he shall hold office during the pleasure of the Minister. He is an officer of the Department of Local Government and this Bill is merely to enable that officer appointed by the former Minister to work out to the end a particular scheme. There is nothing sinister in it, nothing extraordinary and nothing extravagant. There is nothing in it which indicates the Minister's views about the managerial system casting their shadows before. The real remedy for Senator Hawkins is to let his own natural intelligence and good nature work and not read the Irish Press so much.

Mrs. Concannon

I am very glad that the Minister has adopted the expedient, if I may call it so, which he has put forward in this Bill of allowing the person who has done so much for St. Kevin's to continue until the change-over is complete and we make it an institution of which we are proud and hope to be still prouder. I rise to congratulate the Minister, therefore, on that decision. I take the opportunity also to remind him that a great deal of the good work performed by the commissioner, who is now to be known as chief executive officer, was done with the help of a woman. I think it was because he had a woman to help him with the woman's point of view that conditions in St. Kevin's were so much bettered. There are a great many things which a woman sees sooner than a man, and in this particular case the man and woman acted very harmoniously. The woman has now retired, but the man is still carrying on, and I think it would be ungenerous of us if we did not pay tribute to the selfless service of that woman. I hope it will set a headline to the Minister to employ women very often in such cases where their particular qualities ensure the results which are apparent in St. Kevin's.

Mr. Murphy

I think that, unwittingly, certain portions of my short opening statement were calculated to mislead the Seanad to some little extent. I should have made it clear that there were two bodies entitled to make nominations to the membership of the Dublin Board of Assistance. It was not alone the Dublin County Council but Dublin Corporation also who were entitled to make nominations. The statement by Senator Hayes has relieved me of the necessity of making any extended reply to the points made by Senator Hawkins. I want to assure the House that there is no intention to arrogate any powers to the Minister or to obtain powers in any surreptitious or unfair way.

The fact is that this reorganisation work has been in progress for some time. It is under the control of an officer who is an officer of the Department, and, having made that clear, Senator Hawkins will easily understand the reason for not interrupting that arrangement and for having that official, in the matter of recall, subject to the Minister. I hope that neither this House nor the Dáil will be troubled by proposals for an extension of this Bill, but I cannot guarantee that. I hope, however, that in the period provided in the Bill, this work of reorganisation will be completed, and that we will be in a position to put the arrangement regarding the Dublin Board of Assistance which would have been made if this work of reorganisation had not been proceeding into effect.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages today.

Bill passed through Committee; and reported without amendment.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Séamus O'Farrell

I would like to ask the Minister a question in order to clear my own mind. Everyone will agree that the man who has been acting is a person to whom no objection would be raised if he were made chief executive officer. The Section 3 of Part II states that the chief executive officer shall, from time to time as occasion requires, be appointed by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Health. The important thing about that is that it seems to leave in the power of the Minister for all time the appointing of the chief executive officer over the heads of the elected public representatives.

Mr. Hayes

The Act itself is only temporary.

Mr. O'Farrell

There is no alteration of the position in which the public representatives will have no control over the chief executive officer. If that is so, then we are continuing in this Bill an evil that we condemned in the County Management Act.

Mr. Duffy

This Bill is only for six months.

Mr. O'Farrell

It says here that the Minister shall from time to time appoint the executive officer, as the occasion requires. There is nothing about six months in that. I am concerned with the principle. The Bill seems to lay down here a general rule.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Bill is to continue only for six months.

Mr. O'Farrell

That may be, but it is the principle that I am talking about.

Mr. Murphy

May I assure Senator O'Farrell that there is no such intention? The reason for this provision is to make provision in the case of sickness or absence for other reasons. The Bill, in fact, is limited to a certain period and the provisions of the Bill are accordingly limited. It is not intended to apply the principle to which Senator O'Farrell refers, either now or in the future.

Mr. O'Farrell

Very well.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil.