Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 May 1955

Vol. 44 No. 14

Local Government Bill, 1954—Fourth and Fifth Stages.

Amendment No. 2 I consider out of order under Standing Order No. 83, as it does not arise out of proceedings in Committee, and therefore it may not be moved. It was agreed at the last sitting that the Bill would be recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 4 and 5 (Section 61).

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 13, to delete lines 14 to 41 inclusive.

Section 30 enables the Appointments Commission to set up panels. I do not want to go over the history of the Appointments Commission, but the majority of Senators will be aware of the difficulties under which this institution was appointed and the suggestions that were made then as to what would occur as a result of their appointments. On the Committee Stage here, the Minister suggested that this proposal was to accommodate the applicants. I suggest that is not so, that the proposal is more to accommodate those whom it would be desired to have on the boards of the Appointments Commission. That is as one would expect, because if it is a question of appointing a medical officer you must get the best medical people in the country to sit on a particular board. The time those people can give to a function of this kind is very limited. In order to facilitate them and to ensure that they would give of their best services, the Minister has been prompted to make these provisions to meet their requirements.

There is a suggestion that it would be a saving for the applicants. The procedure at the moment is that when a position is advertised—whether of a medical officer in Inisbofin or in some other part of the country—the applicant knows exactly the position for which he applies. If he is not successful in that application, he has to make other applications and it is a question of cost on his part. The Minister suggests that it is in order to make this cost less on persons of that kind that these panels are being instituted. I am very wary about the setting up of panels, for many reasons. I would like Senators to cast their minds back to the institution of this procedure of appointments by the Appointments Commission, having regard to the approach of local authorities to the setting up of this body and having regard to the approach of the applicants for the various positions. It took a long time to make this procedure acceptable. Now we have got to the stage, I think, when it is generally accepted by the various local authorities as one of the best and most effective ways of making appointments. We suggest a new departure now, whereby we empower the Local Appointments Commission to set up a panel.

It is only fair to say that, when this matter was brought to the Minister's attention on the Committee Stage, he did give an indication that he was prepared to consider, sympathetically, the views expressed on that occasion. We have had no concrete proposal from the Minister to assure us that the difficulties which we saw or felt, and which might arise through the implementation of this section, would be attended to. It was for that reason that I felt I should put down this amendment to delete the section.

Let us examine, for a moment, what the section means. We are giving power to the Local Appointments Commission, a body which is known to us, and in which the majority of us have complete confidence. We are giving to this body the privilege of setting up a panel, but the Minister has not given us any assurance as to the length of time this panel is going to operate. That is a very important matter, because injustices can be done. If the panel is going to operate, say, for six months, then to my mind the formation of a panel would not be justified. On the other hand, if it is going to operate over a period of two years or over, then it is going to react very unfairly against new applicants. During the discussion in this House on the Committee Stage, the Minister, to my mind, introduced something that was not at all compatible with the proposal.

A question was put to the Minister by a Senator as to whether, when the panel would be in existence, positions would be advertised in the ordinary way. I think the Minister answered that positions would be readvertised. If that is the case, then the formation of a panel does not serve any purpose. If we are going to have a panel, it must be one for a particular group, dispensary doctors or engineers of a particular classification. That panel must be limited in its lifetime, otherwise we are not going to give to our young people a fair opportunity of applying for the various jobs.

I said, during the debate on the Second Stage of the Bill—and I want to repeat it—that while I was not one of the people, or a member of the Party, who introduced this question of the Local Appointments Commission, I supported it at the time. I supported it against great local opposition when the very existence of this institution, to my mind, was at state. I supported it then, because I felt and was convinced, that here was an opportunity for the best people to get the best jobs, and that we were going to give to the local authorities an opportunity of making their appointments accordingly.

If we are going to set up this panel, the Minister should be in a position to give us an assurance as to its lifetime. We may find that the person who is placed thirteenth on the list is going to be appointed whereas if there had been an advertisement issued, and applicants invited for a particular position that person would probably. find himself third on the list, because he would have better qualifications. I think that is a very serious matter, particularly when the local authority— whether it is the appointment of a dispensary doctor or an engineer that is in question—is bound to ensure that the best qualified person is appointed. These positions should be open to all and sundry, and not restricted to a number of persons who will be put on a panel at a particular date. I want to say this particularly, when we have no assurance for what period the panel is going to exist.

I should like to say that I am disappointed that the Minister has not seen fit to introduce an amendment designed to meet the views which were expressed in this House on the last occasion. The Minister listened to us very attentively, and I think it was agreed that he realised we were very sincere in our objections to the section as it stood, that he felt these objections required examination, and that they should be met by an amendment.

In the first instance, I should like to say that we should do everything we possibly can to inspire confidence in the Local Appointments Commission and in the Civil Service Commission. There is no use in saying that there is not some uneasiness. That uneasiness exists, and responsible people will offer various objections to the Local Appointments Commissioners. I shall not go into these objections but it is as well for us to realise that there is a considerable amount of uneasiness with regard to the commission, and to the method by which it makes appointments. However, I think we cannot devote half enough attention to this section and to the proposals inherent in it.

From my experience as an examiner, both publicly and in the university, I have a great deal of sympathy with the commissioners and with the Minister in this matter. It is something that needs to be overhauled, but just precisely how to do it to satisfy everybody, I do not know. I would not have data at my disposal which would enable me to make what I would consider a satisfactory proposition, but I think the Minister was in a position to get all the facts. I think that, having been able to do that, it should have been possible for him to have introduced an amendment which would have met our wishes in connection with this section. What we are concerned with is that at all times the best candidates should get the jobs and what I am afraid of is that under this panel system the best men may be ruled out. I want to have this point clarified and I want to have it very definite, and I do not know how I am going to get it very definite, unless it is provided for in the law we are about to make. The Minister's assurance will be valuable, but, valuable as it is, it is not fully satisfying.

We want the best man for a job. Supposing there are three people, A, B and C, going on this panel. They will have already been interviewed by the commissioners. They would not have been appointed but somewhere on the files of the commissioners will be mark sheets. A will have been awarded 80 marks; B will have been awarded 79; and C 78. There are men then anxious to go for this job if they have the right to enter. One of them is perhaps a distinguished candidate or a distinguished graduate and if he came before the commissioners he would have every chance of getting 90 or 95 per cent. It is hard on the men who have been already interviewed that none of them get the job, but still our concern is that the best man should get the job, and consequently I want to be assured that every job will be open to all qualified candidates, whether they have been interviewed by the commissioners or not already.

There is another point on which I want clarification. We are concerned very much at the moment with appointments to medical and surgical staffs. I think we are not doing sufficient to state precisely what qualifications are required for these various positions and I think it is time the Minister made up his mind and made it known whether he accepts that practice in Great Britain is essential for appointments. The panel idea is devised mainly to cater for applicants who are living away from Ireland—certainly living away from Dublin but mainly for candidates who will be in practice, say, in Great Britain. I am speaking now mainly of medical applicants, but it is also applicable to graduates in, say, engineering. I think this experience abroad is of very great importance. It is a fact that you just cannot get as wide experience in Ireland, in view of all our circumstances, as can be obtained in Great Britain.

I want to draw the Minister's attention, when he is thinking of his panels, and the attention of the commissioners to the fact that there are in this country a number of very distinguished graduates—I know some of them myself—graduates in medicine and surgery who obtained first class honours in every examination during their courses, who, when the war broke out and when they were requested by the Government of the country, volunteered for the Irish Army and gave all their time to the Army during the emergency. Some of them married during the period they were in the Army, but by the time the emergency was over, it was rather late for these people to go to Great Britain to get that experience which the Minister and the commissioners think so essential. It is very hard on these people that, because of this perhaps unwritten law, that they should have experience in Great Britain, they cannot get a public appointment in this State.

I do not think that is true, Senator.

Is it true that one cannot get a public appointment as a doctor without experience in Great Britain? The Senator assumes that that is so. Is there any evidence for that?

I am not so sure but there is.

I have indicated that there seems to be not a law but an unwritten law. There is a very strong belief abroad that nobody, or scarcely anybody, can get an appointment under our services here unless he will have had experience in Great Britain. I should like, if I were free, to give the names of very distinguished graduates of National University who feel very much aggrieved because of this. Indeed, if the Minister wishes, I could ask the permission of these people to submit their names to him, but I think it is a matter which the House should be made aware of. It is something which I think should indicate to us a certain danger with regard to these panels—the type of person who will go on them and the type of person who is likely to be cut out from the right to apply for certain positions.

I feel that it is inherent in all this section, and if I can get no more than an assurance from the Minister I should be glad to get it, but I think it is a pity that provision is not made definitely in the section with regard to this question of who shall have the right to apply for these jobs. Has the Minister made up his mind that, whenever an appointment is to be made, an advertisement will be issued? If an advertisement is to be issued, there would be no point in issuing it unless all and sundry who are qualified will have the right to apply. If he does that, I will be satisfied to some extent.

With regard to the duration of a panel, I pointed out the previous day that if the panels are to be changed often, it would defeat the intention. They would become more of a nuisance than anything else and if they were to continue for too long. I think they would be a danger. I do not know what the ideal period would be. In a rough and ready way, I think I would be satisfied if the panel were to continue for 12 months, for not longer than 12 months. Whether the Minister could give an assurance that would bind the commissioners that the panel would not last for any longer than that, I do not know, but we ought to have some indication of the Minister's mind in regard to it. That is all I have to say about the matter and indeed all I can say, seeing that we are now on the Report Stage, but I want to say again that I regret very much that the Minister did not see his way to introduce an amendment that would meet the wishes of people on all sides of the House with regard to this very delicate matter.

I happen to be a member of a certain local authority which, prior to the coming into force of the Management Act, did operate a panel system in regard to the recruitment of staff. This local authority did recruit quite a substantial number of staff—filling vacancies arising from marriage and so on. I became a member of the local authority—I came in on the same day as the managers came into local administration—and I saw that system die out. That local authority had a panel and a subsidiary panel and a supplementary panel.

It worked in practice like this, although I could never completely understand it. Certain people were moved from one panel to another and when people were coming near the age limit they were moved from one panel to another if they were too low on their existing panel, and so forth. As a result of seeing it in practice for a very short time, I came to the conclusion that the best thing to do was to eliminate the panel and get away from it as soon as possible. I think we did succeed in getting away from it. If any authority or institution, whether it be the local authority or the Local Appointments Commission, adopts a system like that then I do not think it will tend towards good administration. I have had that experience some years ago. Having regard to the views expressed by Senator Ó Buachalla, I think the Minister should try to meet the viewpoint that has been put forward.

I should like clarification on two points and perhaps the Minister will explain the position when he is replying. The first concerns the point made by Senator Hawkins about the advertising of vacancies. Is there a statutory obligation on local government bodies to advertise vacancies or is it the usual practice? If it is the usual practice or if there is any statutory obligation to that effect, then there does not seem to be much point in having a panel system because people from outside may apply and their applications must be considered.

The second point that arises is how this will affect the graduate abroad. Senator Ó Buachalla thinks that the section would operate against the graduate at home and in favour of the graduate abroad. I am not so sure. The graduate at home is more in touch with things at home and will be quicker off the mark than the graduate abroad who must, for instance, suffer the inconvenience of delay in obtaining the advertisement. I fear the section may operate too much against the graduate abroad. Due to our circumstances, since we obtained the measure of freedom we have, our graduates have mainly been exported in certain fields. I feel it would be a mistake to penalise the graduate abroad. Therefore, I should like the Minister to give some consideration to the question of how far the panel system would, in fact, operate against the graduate abroad who, through no fault of his own, is earning his living in some other country.

I have had complaints about the Local Appointments Commission, but I am not worrying about that because when people do not succeed they complain. However, it is felt that preference is given to the man who has practised in England for, say, 12 or 18 months as against the man in Ireland who applies for the job. I have heard that view expressed by people. I think the panel should not last for longer than 12 months.

Would the Senator agree to it?

I would not object to it. Some time ago, a man went forward for the fourth time for a certain job. He thought it was very hard on him that he had to go forward four times because certain expenses were involved each time. If he had been placed second or third at the previous examination, he could have been put on the panel for the next time a vacancy arose.

I am inclined to agree with Senator Ó Buachalla that there are people who feel that advantage is given to the young man, whether he be an engineer or a doctor, who has practised in England for, say, six or 12 months. I do not object to the panel but it should not be for longer than 12 months.

Is this panel intended simply as a means of not reexamining candidates in the field? If so, it is a good thing. However, if it is going to be used as a means of closing the field for, say, six months of the year, and of preventing other candidates from coming in during those six months of the year, it is clearly bad. When such a panel is drawn up, can other names be added when a job becomes vacant or will this comprise the whole field for the job so long as the panel is valid? If it can be used as a means of closing the field for six, 12, 18 or 24 months, it may be very much open to abuse.

If the panel is created, will further applicants be precluded from applying during the period in which the panel is in force?

The point that has been mentioned now by Senator Stanford and Senator O'Sullivan is the main point of the discussion. I am sure that the last day we were discussing this section we were discussing it in the dark. Nobody seemed to know how its provisions would operate. I was not opposed to the principle of the panel system, as such. In fact, personally, I would rather welcome it —provided I would be assured that the establishment of such a system would not open the door to other and worse injustices or inconveniences than we were trying to eliminate. The difficulty in life about many things is that when we try to eliminate injustices in one direction we may create injustices in another. That is what I am afraid of. That is what we may do if we accept this section in its entirety. I am with the Minister inasmuch as he is making provision whereby it will not be necessary to call people for interview over and over again, at very much inconvenience to themselves and sometimes, too, at a good deal of expense. However, while trying to facilitate people belonging to that category, we must make sure we do not create an injustice for another section.

Senator McHugh said we should not penalise would be applicants from abroad but, at the same time, I submit we should do nothing to penalise would be applicants living at home. It is because we should like to avoid those difficulties that we want this section amended. I understood from the Minister the last day we were discussing this section or, at least, I was hoping that he would find some means of reconciling the idea of obviating the necessity for repeated interviews on the part of applicants for certain posts in this country with the idea of making sure that the best applicants would get the jobs that would be vacant here from time to time. The question is, as somebody mentioned here, are we doing something now that will establish the position here under which the best brains in the country will not get the jobs? Could not that be the case? With all due respect, I think that it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a method by which the two things I mentioned could be reconciled. I do not know whether anything can be done now. This is the Report Stage of the Bill. Unless the Minister is himself prepared to take the remedy into his hands, I am afraid that we can do nothing about the matter at this stage. I would appeal to him though to reconsider it.

We are approaching this matter with open minds. This is not a political matter. We are approaching it honestly and sincerely for the sole purpose of doing the best we can with the section and making the measure worth while and workable as a whole.

The Appointments Commissioners are beyond political influence. When they select somebody for a certain position, they naturally pick the person who is highest in order of merit in their minds. That is only fair and just. If we create a panel system whereby, the applicants who have been interviewed are placed on the panel and if there can be no further interviews until that panel is cleared off, then we will be denying people the right to make application for appointments. Certain speakers, who are more conversant with these matters than I am, said that every year there is thrown up a number of graduates who by all the laws and rights of citizenship, and in accordance with the Constitution, are entitled to make application for any position. A graduate may be interviewed and the commissioners may find that somebody else has a year's or two years' more experience. Young graduates can still be denied preference for the post. That is where the trouble lies.

Are we going to rule out the young men who are just as much entitled to posts and jobs in this country as anybody else? That is the danger I see in the panel system. I agree that there is a hardship on the people who apply time and time again. I know a man in my own constituency who applied for a job six times and who was called for interview six times without succeeding in being placed in a position at any time. The reason was that he was not fit to be appointed as he did not have the qualifications. These people are beginning to recognise their limitations and if they apply for a position and go for interview they should know whether or not they have improved themselves, so as to be competent.

I find myself in agreement with Senator Stanford. If the panel system is kept for longer than six months it is certainly going to be unjust. If it is not kept for longer than six months it is hardly any use forming a panel at all. I would like if the Minister would let us know how long the panel system will be in operation. Will it be in existence for six months, 12 months or until it exhausts itself and all the applicants thereon have found positions?

Listening to the discussion, it occurred to me that possibly the very real difficulties raised on both sides might be met by the rules the Minister would make. I take it that in the first place there must also be an advertisement. In other words, the people must know that there is a vacancy. If the rules then provided that a person who had already been examined could ask the commissioners to act on their previous note without his attending again, the commissioners could so act. On the other hand, any one who applied to be seen could be seen again. I think some rule of that kind might get over the objections on the one hand to a fixed panel which must have the dangers that people will drift up to the top or on the other hand that possibly the Appointments Commissioners may be accused of doing things in the dark. If the arrangement were that a person already examined and noted could say: "Please work on my record," that might meet the situation.

The amendment is to delete the whole of Section 30. Nobody has suggested how this particular section could be amended so as to meet the difficulties in the situation. The truth is that the section itself endeavours, I think, to provide for the difficulties. The Local Appointments Commission is an old Sinn Féin idea. It was, I think, an idea of Arthur Griffith that there should be what he called a local Civil Service. It was put into operation by the first Government. Like everything else you start to do, when it had been done and was being administered under Act of Parliament, it turned out that there were all kinds of difficulties. Senator Commons alluded to the difficulties of local bodies. The Roscommon County Council, for instance, would prefer a Roscommon man. There were difficulties with regard to where a man came from. It was also found that this applied to an immense variety of posts. There was talk about dispensary doctors but there is an immense number of posts apart from these and apart from posts for which graduates might apply or under which the Local Appointments Commissioners have jurisdiction.

I agree at once that the system is a good system. I agree at once that, not only must the Appointments Commissioners do the right thing, but they must have every appearance before the public of doing it. That is what some Senators were concerned about. This particular section is entirely permissive. That has not been adverted to at all. Sub-section (2) says that the Local Appointments Commissioners, if they so think fit, may, in accordance with rules under sub-section (4) of this section, arrange from time to time for examination, etc. In other words, the Local Appointments Commissioners, having an experience of nearly 30 years of this system, may, if they think fit, arrange for panels for certain posts, and if they do think fit, then, under sub-section (4), they may, with the consent of the appropriate Minister, make rules for the purpose under sub-section (2) applying either generally to all panels or classifications or to any particular classification. What the section, in effect, says is that the Local Appointments Commissioners, using their experience, may adopt a different system from the present one with regard to certain posts and may make rules with the consent of the appropriate Minister.

I think that the discussion to-day has rather indicated that this is not so easy as it appears. The Local Appointments Commissioners must be aware of these difficulties. Perhaps the simplest thing would be to see that the rules are made and how the whole thing works out. I know that there are difficulties. I was told, for example, by a number of people here one day, people of different political persuasions from a particular town, what was happening there when we were discussing the work of the Local Appointments Commissioners. The town they said was not very big and it was not very small, but it resulted in young men with certain qualifications coming in all the time to fill the position of town clerk. The man who was actually the assistant could never get the top job because he had not the qualifications required. No one ever stayed in the place because the position was not a big one. A good young man got the job. The older man, a native, taught him all about the work and after about three years the man who had the top job went somewhere else. In a period, I think, of about 18 years they said that they had about seven appointees, none of whom stayed.

It is a case of appointing the best person. It is not so simple to devise these rules. Sometimes, they are difficult to apply justly and properly. It seems to me that you can do nothing with the section that would make it right. I have met a great many people who say that they are sick and tired of applying, of paying fees and travelling from the country and appearing before boards. Even people resident in Dublin object to losing half a day appearing before a board. If these people could be put on a panel, I think a great improvement would be effected, but I do not think it is fair to the Appointments Commissioners, whoever they may be, to suggest that they will adopt the line of least resistance—that is to say, to gather people on a panel and say "that is all right now, we have a panel; no more advertisements and we will wait until the panel is exhausted". I do not think they would do that. I think they would advertise again. It would appear to me that for certain kinds of posts it would at once appear to the Appointments Commissioners that new advertisements should be issued. That, I think, would not apply to all posts. It might, but I doubt if it would. I have not sufficient experience to say. I feel that the section makes provision for allowing the Appointments Commissioners to have a panel, and for allowing them to make rules under this section. I think that should be let work. When you had experience of that, questions could always be asked about this matter.

With regard to the point about graduates who have British experience, I have met a great variety of graduates myself and I have never heard that complaint made. It is said that certain medical experience in Britain is of great importance. It would seem to me, speaking as one without any expert knowledge on medical matters, that certain experience in Dublin or outside of it, or any place within the State, would also be very good indeed. I do not think there is any such rule— that is to say that British experience is regarded as better than comparable Irish experience. We have at our disposal—and this has happened from the very beginning of the State—for our specially difficult jobs Irishmen who have had experience outside the State. If they are selected and desire to come home, I am afraid it is to be regarded as a good thing rather than a bad thing, but that they should be preferred in particular cases, and particularly in routine cases, to people with Irish experience only, is bad. What I suggest is that we should accept this as a well meant and honest effort to overcome a difficulty which has arisen in the working of this Act with regard to the Local Appointments Commissioners, and see in what cases it will be applied and how it will work.

The phrase was used by some Senators that the Minister should meet their wishes. Is it not clear that the Minister could not meet their wishes because they have not been clearly expressed? It is not possible to ascertain what they want done. What is clear is that we are all agreed that we want the best people to be appointed. We are also agreed that we do not want to have people having to apply continually for posts. We want to give the Appointments Commissioners more elbow room, but no one has been able to devise an amendment to ensure that. I do not think it is desirable that we should sit down and try to restrict the Local Appointments Commissioners in doing this particular kind of business, or that the Minister himself could do it. I suggest that we should see how this thing works and if it will lead to any improvement from the point of view of the workability of the scheme.

I agree with Senator Cox that it is desirable in all cases that these advertisements for appointments should appear even though the panel is there. Otherwise, a number of good and able men may be excluded for a long period. Say, for an example, that an appointment is to be made in the month of May. The examinations in the universities may not take place until June or October. If the post to be filled is that of medical officer of health in a dispensary district, the successful applicant will need to have his D.Ph. A number of the applicants may not have that degree by the date that the applications are to be in. Therefore, if this panel system is to operate it is quite possible that a number of applicants would be excluded for possibly 12 months.

The regulations made by the Appointments Commissioners, with the consent of the Minister, may prescribe a period of 12 months. In that event a number of applicants may be excluded. The Minister stated previously that he intended to apply this principally to dispensary medical officers of health and assistant engineers. There may be quite a number of appointments as assistant engineers to be made within the period. If there is a panel, the person who is No. 20 on it may be appointed, although in the meantime quite a number of brilliant young men who had qualified would be excluded. I suggest to the Minister that, as regards the regulations to be made by the Appointments Commissioners, the period specified should be as short as possible, not more than six months.

I am afraid that Senator Hawkins has attributed very selfish motives both to myself and the Appointments Commissioners, motives which do not exist—motives of convenience. When the Bill was before the House in Committee, I said that I welcomed amendments to it, and that I would treat them with the respect which they deserved. I knew that there was no political bias in the discussion, and I was prepared to accept amendments.

It is quite evident to me, from the discussion to which we have listened, that the panel system is desirable. If there is anything wrong with it, no one has given me any suggestions by way of amendment. The only one amendment I have got is one on the Committee Stage by Senator Kissane to delete the section and there is one on the Report Stage now from Senator Hawkins to delete the section. I have got no constructive amendments from the House.

I clearly indicated to the House, following the Committee Stage debate, that I would consult the Local Appointments Commissioners. I want to tell the House now that I did consult them, with a view to examining and meeting as far as possible the various points of view made. The commissioners propose to proceed cautiously and to experiment with the procedure —which is an accurate development of their existing practices. One would think that this setting up of a panel system is an innovation. It is not. Down through the years the commissioners have set up a panel system, but that panel system applies only to individual local authorities. For instance, supposing for a second it is a case of an appointment of an assistant county engineer for Donegal. When the original vacancy occurs, a panel is set up for future vacancies in that county. That has been the practice down through the years, but unfortunaeely if a vacancy occurs in a neighbouring county, in Sligo or Leitrim, that particular panel for Donegal will not operate. I am anxious that it should operate for such counties.

And operate for the whole 26.

Yes, if you wish to make a regulation, if such a vacancy should occur, it might be possible to do that. A panel for about a year's duration may exist for the county engineer or his assistant in Donegal, but that is not sufficient at present for the neighbouring counties, and that is one of the drawbacks which I have tried to amend. The panel system which we envisage would operate under rules made under sub-section (4) by the commissioners with the consent of the Minister. Those rules will vary according to the type of competition and in the light of experience. I propose to give a general outline of how the system may be expected to work.

First of all, care will be taken to advertise panel competitions and they will be advertised much more extensively than at present. They will be advertised as panel competitions and the advertisement will specify not only existing but prospective vacancies to be filled from the panel.

Can anyone apply for such a position if he is not on the panel already?

We are dealing with the panel position. Supposing there is a vacancy for an engineer, in addition to advertising a particular appointment for that engineer—say, in Galway —we will insert in the advertisement that a panel is going to be set up not only for that particular vacancy but for vacancies which may be created within, say, six, ten or 12 months in, say, Galway, Mayo, Longford or Roscommon; and the area will be set out. Any applicant who applies for that vacancy in Galway knows that he is also an applicant for prospective vacancies within six, ten or 12 months and he knows the area for which he is applying. For example, an advertisement may state that a panel is to be set up to fill vacancies for two health inspectors in Cork and Kerry and for any further vacancies for health inspectors which may arise in Limerick or Waterford. The advertisement covers the two vacancies in Cork and Kerry which exist, but the panel will cover any vacancies which may be created in Waterford or some neighbouring county.

What names would go on that panel?

The names of the successful applicants at the interview, in the order of merit.

Fully qualified.

Yes, fully qualified. I want to repeat the assurance I gave on the Committee Stage that no person who has not passed the competition specially held for the panel will be placed on that panel. He must qualify, as Deputy Hickey has just said; otherwise, he will not get on the panel. If a candidate accepts or refuses a panel post—this point was put to me on the last day here—and another more attractive post is to be filled from the panel later, the candidate's chances of the second post will not be prejudiced by the fact that he accepted or refused the first post. Some doubt was expressed in the House on Committee Stage on that particular point. The fact that he refused or accepted a prior post will not prejudice him in any way in applying for some other post of a similar nature which is on the panel.

The classes of posts that it is proposed to fill from a panel system will depend on the experience gained in the operation of the system by the Local Appointments Commissioners. The classes that are in mind at the moment are classes where there is a substantial number of applicants each year—such as health inspectors, assistant county engineers, district medical officers, dentists, town clerks and agricultural instructors. There is no mention of county medical officer of health or county surgeon—posts where vacancies rarely occur. The posts we have in mind are those in which there is a number of vacancies annually and which we are anxious to fill and the filling of which has been held up for many months and even for years in some cases not through the inability to procure suitable candidates but through the refusal of selected candidates to take up the positions, in which case another competition has had to be arranged.

All of these posts will not necessarily be filled by the panel system and there may be others from time to time where there will be substantial recruitment. It is not the intention to apply the panel system to posts in which there are only occasional vacancies. That is not the purpose of the system at all. The life of the panel will depend on experience and normally a duration of a year might not be unreasonable. I can assure the House that, in so far as I am the appropriate Minister, I certainly would be very loath indeed to sanction a panel which would last for longer than 12 months. I can assure the House that, in so far as I am the appropriate Minister, I certainly will not sanction a panel for a longer period than 12 months. I have given a fair amount of thought to the points raised by Senators in Committee. There is no desire on the part of the commissioners or on my part to take any step which would undermine public confidence in the filling of these appointments.

I realise that Senator Ó Buachalla made a point which did worry me in the beginning, that is, the point that additional applicants may turn up. The Senator wants to allow anyone who wishes to compete, even after the panel has been formed. There is a difficulty there. The interview board, even if it were composed of the very same gentlemen—as it very seldom is —who set up the original panel, might not have the same standard of recommendation as the original panel. One can easily visualise the different views that different boards may take of different candidates. Sometimes a candidate may create a different impression on a board on different days. Once the panel is set up it would be unfair to add to it. It is a panel for the filling of vacancies which occur regularly, not the occasional one.

We hope to gain by experience and may add to or subtract from the vacancies which we propose filling from the panel system. We do not wish that the public should have any less confidence in the Local Appointments Commissioners than they have at the moment. Some person has suggested that persons with experience abroad are given preference to persons with comparable experience in this country. That is not so, and I hope it will never happen. There is no rule or regulation governing that, and I sincerely hope there never will be.

On a point of correction, the Minister mentioned me as having put down an amendment to have the section deleted. I did not. The amendment was to have a previous section——

Section opposed. I am very sorry.

My amendment sought to amend the section.

The amendment was not pressed. I apologise to the Senator.

If I were called upon to make a serious defence for my amendment to this section, I think I would be very satisfied with the Minister's statement. Senator Hayes, and the Minister, questioned us as to why we, on this side of the House, who did not see eye to eye with this amendment, did not put down a very definite amendment. The reasons for that are easily given. I do not wish to hold the House very long, except to quote the Minister's own statement on the Committee Stage of the Bill. On this section, when Senator ffrench O'Carroll had made some remarks, the Minister made this statement:—

"However, I would be prepared to consult with the Appointments Commissioners and put before them the various suggestions which have been made here by this House—I must say, most constructive suggestions indeed—and see if I can bring in any amendment on Report."

It was because of that statement that I waited so long to find, and was disappointed that I did not find, that the Minister had proposed to out an amendment to this section. He has given us reasons for the setting up of this panel, but he has certainly not answered the questions which should, and must, be answered, before this House, or any responsible body constructed as this body must be, would give this power to the Local Appointments Commission. I would assure the Minister, and those people on the other side of the House, that we on this side are as much concerned, as they are, if not more, with the good working of this particular authority.

I do not question that at all.

Any contribution or suggestions which we make are solely directed so that the people to whom this section particularly applies would be satisfied that, in so far as they were concerned, justice was done. The Minister made a vague reference and said that, as far as he is concerned, the time limit he would put on this panel would be no longer than 12 months. When the Bill passes through this House, the Minister's statements are just as valuable as any statement made by any other member of the House. What really counts is what is incorporated in the Bill. The Minister has failed to incorporate that the panel system should exist for a period of 12 months.

That is the period of time for panels under the panel system for local authorities.

To my mind, if we are to give this section to the House, the Minister must answer very definitely what the time limit of the panel is. Personally I am opposed to the setting up of a panel for any length of time, be it long or short. Seeing that we must have a panel, I would be prepared to support its setting up for as short or long a period as it would be possible to have it. Again, the Minister is very vague. He suggests that every position will be advertised. If that is so, if every position, say, in County Galway or County Kerry is going to be advertised, what is the purpose of the panel? It serves no purpose at all.

I said prospective vacancies in these as well as existing vacancies.

That is a very definite statement. Who is going to be the deciding authority on the prospective vacancies? Who is going to forecast when dispensary doctors in County Galway are going to die?

If they do not, no vacancy will exist.

Who is going to prophesy, with any sureness, as to whether there should be two county surveyors or three assistant surveyors, even in County Donegal?

We can forecast who will retire under the age limit. In this case, we will know when a vacancy will exist.

Now we are coming down to something very definite. The only thing we can forecast is the number of local dispensary doctors who will, say, on the 15th December, reach 65 years of age, and that, therefore, they are going out, and they do not even have to resign.

But we know the number of engineers or the number of health visitors who will have to resign.

Two-thirds of the dispensary doctors in this country are not compelled to retire, when they reach the age of 65, so we cannot even forecast when such vacancies will occur. We may be in a position to forecast when some vacancies might occur in the engineering department. When we contribute a certain amount to the education of our doctors and engineers, we would like to see as many of them as possible going before an appointment board, confident that the only thing which will count is their ability to pass whatever examination is set. Let us suppose there are 23 vacancies in the engineering departments throughout the country, that the Local Appointments Commission advertise that they are going to consider applications for these positions—that 60, 40, 50 or 80 people appear before this board, and out of that number you select a panel. Will the persons who are placed on the panel be so informed and will they be informed as to the position they occupy in relation to appointment? If not, an injustice is immediately done to these people.

Applicants pay a fee of, I think, a guinea at the moment and sit for the examination. They wait then for a time, expecting every day that the postman will come with good or bad news, with news that they have been successful or unsuccessful. The sooner they know the bad news, the better for themselves, because they can set about doing something else. It is our duty here to ensure that persons who are successful will be so informed, and not alone informed that they have been successful, but informed as to the place they secured, whether fourth, twenty-fifth or twenty-sixth, so that if other positions offer in the meantime they will not be in the position of having to say: "I hope to get a letter appointing me as engineer in Galway——"

If they do not qualify, they will soon be informed.

That is not my point. We are passing a very definite section which is going to affect quite a number of our young people. We set up an institution to ensure that the best possible persons would be appointed to various public posts and what I want to ensure is that, if we have to have a panel, there will be no doubt created in the minds of applicants with regard to the element of justice which will operate in making selections from that panel. I do not wish to go any further than that, although I could, if I wished to do so. The system is there and it is a system of which every side of the House approves, with a view to ensuring that not alone is a local authority going to be satisfied that they will get the best applicant but that every applicant will be satisfied that he or she has received justice.

A question has been put to the Minister and has not been answered in any satisfactory manner with regard to the panel. The suggestion has been made that the panel of itself is a good idea in that it saves applicants from the necessity of paying a guinea on making further applications. One dispensary doctor told me that a particular application was his twenty-fifth.

I said that he might as well have been buying Sweepstake tickets—he would have a better chance.

I mentioned that to get the answer I have got from the Minister. Our concern should not be with the £25 from the doctor; our concern should be and must be that the people of that dispensary district get the best possible medical officer the country can supply. That is what the Appointments Commission was set up for and that is the principle on which I supported the Appointments Commission, in the first instance.

I am with you, certainly.

Why then does the Minister come in here and suggest that we must accept this proposal of his because it is going to ensure that people who would not be placed twenty-fifth or twenty-sixth in an open competitive examination or following an interview must be placed on a panel?

I take it that only the really qualified man is put on the panel?

That is all.

But he has to be interviewed first.

That interview will be held at a particular period and if that period is extended over two or three years——

The Senator may rest assured that there will be no panel in existence for two years.

Will the Minister put that in the Bill and I will be satisfied?

I will put it in the regulations.

Why not put it in the Bill?

Could a Minister 20 years from now not amend these regulations?

Of course, he could.

And a Dáil 20 years from now can criticise the Minister for making the regulations.

And amend the Act.

There has been another suggestion by the Minister which is not at all compatible with the suggestion of the panel—that new applicants may apply. I suggest that if we are to have a panel, it must be a panel and must exclude definitely any new applicants.

I said that. That is exactly what I said.

Ah, now we are getting the answer to the question that we want. Therefore, if we pass this proposal and set up this panel, we are giving an opportunity to the Appointments Commissioners to appoint a person to a position even if it is the important position of dispensary doctor, which, to my mind, is the most important position in the country, who may be fifteenth, sixteenth or seventeenth on that panel, whereas, if the position were advertised at the time it became vacant, there might be a new applicant with more definite qualifications who would be a greater asset to the local authority and to the people who pay him for the services he renders.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted, stand."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 13.

  • Barniville, Henry L.
  • Burke, Denis.
  • Butler, John.
  • Carton, Victor.
  • Commons, Bernard.
  • Cox, Arthur.
  • Crowley, Patrick.
  • Douglas, John Harold.
  • Fearon, William R.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Hickey, James.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McCrea, James J.
  • Mannion, John.
  • Meighan, John J.
  • Murphy, Dominick F.
  • O'Brien, George.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Prendergast, Micheal A.
  • Reidy, James E.
  • Ruane, Seán T.
  • Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.
  • Stanford, William B.
  • Tierney, Patrick.
  • Tunney, James.

Níl

  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Dowdall, Jane.
  • Hartney, Seán.
  • Hawkins, Fred.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • O'Callaghan, William.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Sheridan, John D.
  • Smith, Matthew.
  • Teehan, Patrick J.
  • Walsh, Louis.
Tellers:—Tá: Senator McCrea and Senator Seán T. Ruane; Níl: Senator Hawkins and Senator T. O'Sullivan.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question declared carried; amendment negatived.

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 21, line 7, to delete "and" and substitute ", cultural or".

This amendment is put down for the purpose of clarifying a point that was raised in Committee and of seeing what the precise intentions of these sections are. Perhaps the House will allow me, before dealing with the matter of the amendment, to say that Sections 51, 52 and 57 all appear to aim at the same objects. They make provision for assistance to be given by a local authority to a committee of local persons, whether a parish committee or otherwise, interested in social and economic matters. Section 52 provides for halls and Section 57 provides for a museum so that, taken together, these three sections are a considerable advantage on what one might call the social and cultural front.

I thought on the Committee Stage that the word "social" would include "cultural" but, as I have some doubts on the matter now, I would like to have them clarified. I know, of course, that the word "social", as interpreted by the courts, is possibly much wider than the word "social" used in ordinary conversation. What does seem to be difficult is the use of the words "social and economic" because it would appear that no help could be given by a local authority to any object. The object would require to be not only of social but also of economic value. Quite clearly, a great many cultural activities could not by any immediate argument be proved to be of economic value.

I take it that the intention of Section 51 and the other sections is to give local authorities the power, where they think fit, to help a local committee engaged in certain social activities. I take it that the provisions of Sections 51, 52 and 57 need ministerial sanction before any local body can spend any money. I also take it that before assistance is given to any committee which is dealing with these matters the committee would have had to make good. If local people had gone into a matter, made a certain amount of progress and had shown they were anxious and competent to do a particular job of work, then they would get assistance.

Briefly, the section is very narrowly drawn. For example, I cannot see how a dramatic society would qualify by having to be social and also economic. I can understand that the word "social" might be regarded as including cultural activities. A dramatic society, an operatic society or any such society would brighten up rural life or the life of our country towns and, therefore, could have indirect economic effects. I am not sure that that particular argument would be accepted by a Minister or by the courts. I would like to get information on that. I could make a case that cultural activities would have economic effects, but, as I say, I doubt whether that would be accepted.

I should like to say also that, in putting down the word "cultural", I do not mean something highbrow or mysterious, or confined to a small group of people. Local history, for example, is cultural. The study of archaeology and antiquities could be made interesting to a great number of people. Pride in one's own locality would promote genuine nationalism, the kind of love for Ireland which sustained our people through a great many centuries and difficulties.

I find difficulty in putting these sections together and interpreting the words "social" and "economic" in them. For example, in Section 52 a local body is empowered to provide a building for lectures. If I were studying Section 51 by itself, I would assume that a lecture on the archaeology or the antiquities of a district, for example, would not come within the purview of Section 51 but if the word "lecture" in Section 52 is to be taken in a general sense, then I am not right. It is for the purpose of clarifying that I put down the amendment. It seems to me, therefore, in a nutshell, that the intentions of these sections are extremely good. They are a great step forward. I think they come from an Act of 1941. The interpretation of Section 51 might be too narrow. If it is drawn too narrowly, then it will prevent the intentions of the Act from being carried out.

I support this amendment. As Senator Hayes pointed out, it seems that the courts interpret the word "social" in a wider sense than, perhaps, some of us would. It seems to me that in a Bill of this kind it is desirable to have pointers for the ordinary person as to what is intended. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me when I say that what is intended by this particular section is a general enrichment of life in the country. If we make that clear by including the word "cultural"—I think it would be a help—we would be doing a good day's work.

It seems absolutely certain that the word "or" is needed. We have had the opinion of a learned lawyer in this House on the Committee Stage that the word "and" is restrictive, whereas the word "or" would give the section wider scope. I hope the Minister will realise—I am sure he does—that in asking for this amendment we simply want to clear the way for the widest possible use of this clause. We feel that, as it stands, it is restrictive. We want to open the door a little wider. That is all.

Táimse i bhfábhar an leasuithe seo mar do bhíos ag iarraidh é chur chun cinn nuair a bhí an Bille fé dhíospóireacht ar chéim an Choiste cheana. Fé mar do thuig mé ó bheith ag leámh an ruda ní fhéadfadh dream go mbeadh suim acu in aithbheochaint na Gaeilge, cuir i gcás, fé Chonnradh na Gaeilge, ní fhéadfaidís airgead d'fháil, ón Rialtas Áitiúil. Do theastaigh uaim é sin do leigheas. Ní raibh daoine eile sa tSeanad ar aon aigne liom in a thaobh. Do cheapadar go raibh an mhír maith go leor mar do bhí sí. Is cuma sin anois má táthar chun é sin do leigheas. Tá súil agam go mbainfear feidhm as an leasú chun imeachtaí do chur ar siúl agus go gcuirfear hallaí ar bun ar fuaid na tíre in a dtabharfar léachtaí ar son na teangan agus ar son cultúir na hÉireann agus go ndéanfar rudaí áirithe eile chun sinn do chur ar bhóthar ár leasa. Tá súil agam go mbeidh cabhair le fáil againn sa tslí sin, cabhair ná fuil á fáil againn Ó Radio Éireann féin.

Is mór an trua nach ón rialtas lár a bheadh an t-airgead seo le fáil ach is dócha go mbeadh súil againn leis an iomarca dá mbeadh sin i gceist againn. Fé mar adúirt an Seanadóir eile a labhair sé an t-easnamh is mó san tír seo amuigh fén dtuaith ná nach bhfuil aon áit ag na daoine óga chun caitheamh aimsire bheith acu agus chun cabhrú leis an gcultúr Gaelach do chur chun cinn.

Má chabhraíonn an leasú seo le saol na tuaithe d'fheabhsú agus d'eadtromú beimid ar an mbóthar ceart.

It is hardly necessary for me to remark that I am very much in favour of this amendment because it seeks to clarify the wording of the section. When we were dealing with the section on the Committee Stage, there was a doubt as to whether the words "social and economic" would embrace "cultural". From my reading of the section then I had hardly any doubt at all that the words "social and economic" were used expressly to exclude any other. I am glad that the Seanad now sees its way to accept the amendment. It would be as well, too, that it should go forth from this House that it is our desire that the section, as amended, would be fully availed of.

Unfortunately, under the old Act of 1941, there was not a single instance of where a hall had been erected in any part of the country, the reason being, of course, that the local authority would be of opinion that it would be too much of a commitment for them. This will not be so much of a commitment because it will only mean the giving of grants towards the erection of a hall and the maintenance of it as a centre of recreation, this to be the responsibility of the local committee.

I am very anxious, as I have said, that this should be availed of for the purpose of reviving the Irish language and for the advancement of our native culture, a thing which is very badly wanted in the country. It is true, unfortunately, that in many respects our native culture is being neglected. The young people do not seem to realise fully its importance. That is why I am anxious that publicity would be given to the passing of this amendment so that the local authorities will be made fully aware of the powers which are being given to them under the amended section.

I am at a loss to know, in view of what has been said by Senator Hayes and Senator Kissane, why this section applies only to county boroughs. In my opinion, there is a greater need for a social, economic and cultural revival in the boroughs than there is in the county boroughs. I should like if the Minister would tell us why he has not made provision for the boroughs. I think that life ought to start in the country so that it will, if you like, reflect itself in the larger cities. My reading of this is that it only applies to the four county boroughs and that the five other boroughs, plus the new boroughs of Dún Laoghaire and Galway, are excluded as well as the large urban districts. It may be that the Minister has more comprehensive legislation in hands to deal with that problem, but in my opinion this is only touching the fringe of it. I think that the putting in of this amendment means really starting at the top rather than building up from the bottom.

The point raised by Senator Burke is really not relevant to the amendment at all. It certainly is not appropriate on this stage of the Bill. I would remind the Senator that Part VI of this Bill and Part VIII of the Local Government Act of 1941 apply to county councils.

That is where they can build a parish hall.

They would have to maintain it.

Under this Bill they may give a free grant or give an interest free loan to local committees. I have a lot of sympathy with what Senators have said, but I am afraid that the amendment would only restrict the scope of the Bill. I said on the Committee Stage that I was satisfied and convinced that in the contest of "general social and economic interests" the word "social" included the word "cultural". While I was satisfied of that, I wanted to put it beyond yea or nay, and therefore I sought legal opinion on the matter. My original opinion was confirmed by the legal opinion which I obtained. I am only afraid that, if accepted, this amendment would, in fact, restrict the scope of the section by increasing the number of qualifications which a group would have to possess before it could procure a loan. If the amendment were accepted a number of bodies with very limited interests indeed would be entitled to get grants. We should not forget that when a local authority decides to give a grant it may make certain stipulations. It is in the hands of the local authority to decide what bodies of people may apply for grants such as are envisaged.

They will have to be guided by this.

According to the legal interpretation of the section the words "general, social and economic interests" include "cultural". That being so, in my opinion the acceptance of the amendment would only restrict the scope of the Bill.

I am in full agreement with what Senator Hawkins said when speaking on the Second Stage of this Bill. He said:—

"I would not be disposed to encourage the giving of grants and loans to any other type of persons for the erection of parish halls except the halls were really going to be parish halls...."

The quotation is from column 1078 of the Seanad reports for Wednesday, the 30th March, last. If economic, social or cultural interests were the only qualifications necessary, one can imagine the number of applicants there would be for grants such as are envisaged in the Bill. I am satisfied that when the local authority goes about the making of conditions, regulations and stipulations for the giving of grants they can confine the grants to parish councils or to, according to the actual wording of the section, "approved local councils". On the legal interpretation of the section as it stands, I am satisfied that what Senators want is included.

The Minister has very skilfully quoted legal opinion plus Senator Hawkins against me and it is very hard to stand against that. I am satisfied the section does include "cultural" and in those circumstances perhaps it is better to let it stand. I propose to withdraw the amendment.

This puts a different complexion on it altogether.

Bill recommitted for the purpose of taking amendment No. 8 to Section 61.

I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 25 to delete lines 28 to 37 and substitute the following:—

(1) (a) The Minister may by regulations make provision in relation to all or any local authorities with respect to all or any of the following matters:—

(i) making of contracts,

(ii) accounts,

(iii) audit of accounts.

(b) The Minister may by regulations make provision in relation to all or any local authorities except a county or other borough with respect to any of the following matters:—

(i) summoning of meetings,

(ii) procedure.

In speaking on this section a fortnight ago, I said I was interested in safeguarding the time-honoured procedures that take place at our corporation meetings. I also said that we had only four county boroughs and five borough councils. An enormous amount of tradition has grown up since these councils have been manned well over 100 years ago in a democratic manner by the people of this country. The tradition of service to the local community is very high. I would hate that any powers should be taken now which would allow a Minister to remove or take from these local authorities any of the powers they have. We in this country have not had much time for ceremonial and it would be in our interest if we had a little more of it. Some of these bodies provide the only ceremonial that is left in many parts of Ireland outside the principal cities. It is in an effort to try and safeguard things of this nature that I have put down this amendment.

I know it is true that there is no provision to remove these things I have mentioned, but on the other hand the regulations which can be made could, in my opinion, have an undesirable consequence. They could tend to reduce the status of the mayor of these boroughs and to increase the status of a county manager, if a Minister should so desire. I believe that the rights, privileges and prerogatives of our boroughs ought to be above the Minister. I sincerely believe it is the present Minister's wish that that should be so. The powers they have have not been abused. They have encouraged good types of public representatives to come in and follow up the traditions of these councils.

I have been a member of a corporate borough for almost 23 years and as regards many people who sit on that borough with me their fathers have been members before them. The same applies to many of the other nine cities and towns of Ireland that have such institutions. They are now our institutions: we have taken them over and we are working them, and to continue on the great traditions of service that they have is very important. I do not like to see that the Minister can take power to set aside some of the rights of the mayor, certainly reducing his status. The Repeal of Enactments Act, 1952, repealed the section of the Municipal Corporations Act which appoints that the mayor shall have precedence over all other persons in a borough. I would hate to think that a county manager—or anyone else, for that matter—should have precedence over the first citizen. If we give the county managers power that would rob him of the trappings of office, we will be inclined to build up the non-elected permanent officials as against the elected representatives; and that is not the sort of safeguard in democracy I would like to see.

Therefore, I would ask the Minister to consent to the small amendment, that the Minister may by regulations make provision in relation to all local authorities, except a county or other borough, with respect to the summoning of meetings and to procedure. I want to safeguard those two small matters even from regulation may be it is not the Minister's intention, but, as someone has pointed out, in 20 years' time it might be someone's inclination to remove some of these powers. There is a tendency towards the secularisation of everything and I think it is a bad tendency. Many of the members of corporations that I have spoken to have been 25 or 30 years in office and do not consider there is any real reason for the removal of these powers. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to refrain from taking power to remove these rights and privileges which have been so long in the custody of the nine county boroughs and borough councils in this State.

I would like to assure Senator Burke that I have no intention of unfrocking the Mayor of Clonmel or the aldermen of that very important town.

Or any of the others.

Or any of the others in Ireland. I have no intention of unfrocking them or of replacing their garb with the county manager's hat. The aim of these regulations under Section 61 will be to embody, in easily accessible form, provisions at present scattered over more than 20 Acts and regulations. That is the purpose of the regulations to be made under this section. There will be no interference whatsoever with the ceremonial or dignity of the local authorities in any way, in the regulations which it is anticipated we will make under the section.

Examples of matters which it is hoped to tidy up in the new regulations are as follows. First, there is the proving of the minutes. As you know, in the case of county borough councils, county councils, urban district councils and towns with town commissioners, it is provided that the minutes of meetings may be received in evidence of what took place at the meetings. This is provided in Article 36 (8) of the Schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, and Section 55 of the Commissioners Clauses Act, 1847, as applied by Section 28 of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854. No similar provision exists for borough councils. It is to enable us to have some uniformity about the method of proving minutes for all classes of local authorities, including the borough councils, that I require these regulations.

Again, in Section 92 of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act, 1840, it is provided that the minutes shall be open to the inspection of any burgess or voter at any reasonable time on payment of a fee of 1/-, and any burgess or voter shall be at liberty at all reasonable times to make any copy or take any extract from such book. This provision in regard to the payment of 1/- is peculiar to county and other boroughs. No fee could be demanded in the case of other local authorities.

It is to have uniformity that I require these regulations. I am not going to unfrock any mayor or alderman of any town in this country.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 25, line 28, before the word "by" to insert the words "in consultation with the local authority, such consultation being a reserved function".

This section provides:—

"(1) The Minister may by regulations make provision in relation to all or any local authorities with respect to all or any of the following matters:—

(a) summoning and holding of meetings,

(b) procedure,

(c) making of contracts,

(d) accounts,

(e) audit of accounts,

(f) matters which are subsidiary or ancillary to any of the foregoing matters."

The Parliamentary Secretary, in introducing the Bill to this House, gave us to understand that its purpose was to give back to local authorities powers of which they were deprived by previous legislation. We now come to this section, and find that the Minister is taking unto himself the power of making regulations as to the summoning of meetings of local authorities. I think this is a matter which should be left to the local authorities to decide.

The proposal in my amendment is that the making of regulations governing such matters should only be made after consultation with the local authority. The Minister might reply: "I am prepared to enter into consultation with the local authority on all these matters". The summoning of meetings seems to be very unimportant, but for a particular local authority, or members of it, it is a very important matter. It is a question which can only be decided by themselves. I do not think that the Minister should enter into it at all. If sanction must be given to make these meetings valid, then it should be in accordance with the wishes of the local authorities. If we pass the section as it stands, we are giving power to the Minister to make regulations as to the time and place local authorities may meet, and the procedure which they may adopt in relation to the many matters in this section.

I put it to the House and to the Minister that such decisions should the taken only after consultation with the local authorities, and that the Minister be then given the powers he asks for under this section. If he is not prepared to accept this proposal, I would like to hear from him the grounds on which he suggests it is essential to give him these powers. Why should the Minister be given the power of deciding when a particular local authority should hold its meetings? The elected representatives of an urban council, corporation, or county council give their time voluntarily, and if it comes to deciding when to hold their meetings, it should be a question for themselves to decide.

With regard to the question of contracts, while it might be desirable that we should have a uniform system for local authorities, they should be taken into the confidence of the Minister, and he should not ask this House, or the other House, to give him powers to make regulations without at least having consulted the local authorities as to the procedure they should adopt.

Might I ask the Minister if he proposes to make regulations? It has been represented to me that it is desirable that regulations should be made. Senator Hawkins has referred to that question also, and the Minister might tell us what his intentions are.

Let me explain that any regulation which would be made under this section would contain very little, if anything, which is not referred to the summoning of meetings. Regulations governing the summoning of meetings, at the moment, are regulated by law. As I pointed out, when dealing with Senator Burke's amendment, the purpose of the section is to tidy up sections and enactments which are scattered over Acts of the old British Parliament and our Oireachtas. It is for that purpose, to give us some uniformity, and for the purpose of consultation, that I ask for power to make these regulations. As I said, there will be very little, if anything, in the regulations which is not statute law at the moment. One can appreciate that, under one section of a very old Act, a local authority may adopt a certain procedure to call a meeting, whereas and her local authority, of a different status, would have an entirely different procedure. It is for the purpose of consolidation and uniformity that I want regulations to gather up these scattered Acts down through the years.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator Hawkins and Senator Burke have been complaining of what they consider are the unwarranted inroads being made into the powers and duties of members of local authorities. These are dealt with under sub-sections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Section 61. It appears to me that there is something more serious; there is a danger, a possibility of a serious attempt on the part of the Minister to encroach upon the independence of auditors. We have in sub-section (e) the audit of accounts, that is to say:—

"the Minister may by regulations make provision in relation to all or any local authority with respect to all or any of the following matters:—

(a) summoning and holding of meetings,

(b) procedure,

(c) making of contracts,

(d) accounts,

(e) audit of accounts,

(f) matters which are subsidiary or ancillary to any of the foregoing matters."

It merely deals with the manner in which the books will be presented. It has nothing to do with the manner in which the auditors will carry out their duties. I can assure the Senator of that.

That is all right. I suppose we can gather from that statement that there will be no interference whatever with the independence of the auditor?

Definitely no.

Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take the remaining Stages now.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for Final Consideration".

I am not quite familiar with the procedure, but I did understand that, when we recommitted the Bill, we were going to consider all the amendments that had not yet been dealt with. I notice that one has been omitted—the last one in the name of Senator Bergin. There is probably some technical reason for it, but I did not hear it being explained.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It was ruled out of order at the last meeting.

I did not hear the grounds.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Irrelevancy.

Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

I do not wish to encroach on the time of the House unduly, but, in the course of the discussion which took place on the very important Section 30, that section was represented as being a permissive section. With that I am in agreement, but we know from experience that sometimes these permissive sections can open the door to untold and unexpected abuses. I must come back to the panel system again. The Minister gave us to understand that the panel system would not operate in such a manner as to deprive oncoming people with degrees of the opportunity of getting posts in their own country. In that connection, I should like to refer to a panel system which is already in operation in this country, namely, the panel system governing the appointment of teachers in national schools. Let it be clearly understood that so long as that panel exists, governing the appointment of primary teachers in our primary schools, nobody else has the ghost of a chance of getting an appointment——

That is correct.

——until the panel is cleared. I want Senators to bear that in mind.

We will have a time limit on our panel.

If this panel is to operate in the same way as the primary teachers' panel is being operated, it can be accepted that no appointment will be made of anybody, except a person whose name is already on the panel. I should like to know if the functioning of this panel will be analogous to the functioning of the teachers' panel.

Definitely no. There will be no time limit in this case.

The teachers' panel is scarcely analogous in any case.

It certainly is.

May I submit a question to the Minister as to whether perhaps in this codifying Bill an opportunity has not been missed in relation to the matter about which Senators Bergin and Tierney were concerned? In this amendment which was ruled out of order——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator is out of order on that matter. The amendment was ruled out of order and does not arise out of the present Bill and therefore may not be discussed at this stage.

Might I just ask the question of the Minister as to when and how he thinks——

Under the Consolidation of the Franchise Bill it may be brought in.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share