City and County Management (Amendment) Bill, 1954—Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
Tairgim leasú Uimh. a 1:—
To delete "manager" and substitute "bainisteoir" in line 6, page 4, and in every other place where the word occurs subsequently.
Ba mhaith liom an leasú seo a mholadh don Seanad. Mar is cuimhin liom, nuair a bhí Bille mar seo os comhair an Tí eile do theastaigh uaim an rud céanna a dhéanamh. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil an tám tagaithe anois nuair ba cheart dúinn gach focal i nGaeilge dá bhféadfar do chur in úsáid i mease na ndaoine agus dá bhféadaimis anseo sa Seanad deashampla a thabhairt sa tslí sin, ba mhór an ní é. B'fhéidir go bhfuil daoine ann adéarfadh nach bhfuil sa mheid seo ach rud beag—focal fánach mar seo a bheith in úsáid—ach tá na samplai againn cheana féin de sin, mar anseo sa ngnó atá ar siúl againn sa dá Thigh tugaimíd aithinteas don rud san agus, im thuairim, oifig thábhachtach sea oifig an bhainisteora agus beidh fhios ag gach aoinne cé hé. Geallaimse dhuit, a Leas-Cathaoirligh, ná déanfar aon dearmad, mar gheall ar go mbeidh fhios acu cé bheidh i gceist nuair adéarfar "bainisteoir."
I have put down this amendment for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the Seanad as to what progress we should make in recognising words in the Irish language when dealing with such people as executive officers up and down the country. These executive officers will be the bainisteoirí or managers. We have already set the example here in Oireachtas Éireann. Everybody now has accepted Ceann Comhairle, Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Cathaoirleach and Leas-Cathaoirleach. Even all the Press organs, with the exception of, I think, one, have accepted these titles and I am now asking the Seanad to consider whether it would not be wise to go a step further and to use "bainisteoir" instead of "manager" when describing the county executive officer. I must say that I am not tied to the expression "bainisteoir", and if there is anybody here who can think of a better term in the Irish language, I shall be quite pleased. Whether they call him "coimisinéar" or "bainisteoir", I think we should in any case make some move in that direction from now on. As we have mentioned on other occasions, such Irish expressions as "Bord na Móna" have been accepted and well accepted by our people and by people outside this country. I do not see why we should not go a little further and so I recommend this amendment to the Seanad.
Tuigimse an rud atá ar intinn ag an Seanadóir agus cad a theastaíonn uaidh a dhéanamh ach ní dóigh liom go bhfuil an ceart aige. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil an leasú i gcoinne nádúir teangacha.
I understand what Senator Ó Ciosáin wants and I understand his laudable anxiety to spread the use of Irish words, but it seems to me that his amendment runs contrary to the nature of languages and does not take into account the way in which languages develop, the way in which they decay and the way in which, on some occasions, they are revived. What we really want in this country is that people should speak Irish, even if they have to use English words, but speaking English with an occasional Irish word is not only impractical but foolish, and not at all conducive to the aim we have in view. We do use some Irish words in English, such as the word "omadhaun". The word "omadhaun" is used because it somehow has a flavour to Irish ears which the English equivalent has not got. It is not quite the same as the English word "fool". The Senator is, I think, confusing certain things. If this word "bainisteoir" were put in everywhere, instead of "manager" it would mean that we would have an Irish word —a very recent Irish word and a word which, I think, is unknown in the Gaeltacht—in the middle of a number of English words and that, I think, is not conductive to the spread of the Irish language at all. There are some cases where English words are used in Irish. I remember my first visit to the Gaeltacht, when I was completely stumped by a man who was breaking stones on the road, who said: "Arbh é siúd mac a' Chounty?" I could not make it out. "County" was the word in English for the county inspector of the R.I.C. and "mac a' Chounty" was his son. In the same way "mac a' tSuperintendent" is now quite common, and if a person speaks Irish and uses "Superintendent" he is doing a good day's work, but he is not doing it by inserting an odd Irish noun into English speech.
The words "Bord na Móna" and "An Bord Fáilte" are on a different footing, a more or less practical one. The most practical of all is "Aer Lingus", which is not spelt properly in Irish but is spelt with a view to enabling people to pronounce it. The phrase "An Tóstal" is a dreadful thing. If you do not know Irish it is all right. In the first place, people call it "Anne Tóstal" and again you get a Government publication which has a leading article which says: "In this our third An Tóstal." Nothing could be worse. It does no good at all to the Irish language.
What we want is to use more Irish, to know more Irish and even if English words have to be put into it that is a step forward provided you use Irish; but the converse, that you put odd Irish words into the English language is not making any progress at all.
I disagree entirely with the words that have been used. I find the word "Taoiseach" very embarrassing. Are you going to call it "Taoiseach", "The Taoiseach" or "An Taoiseach", and how do you address the unfortunate man at a meeting? Do you say "Mr. Chairman, Mr. Taoiseach" or "Mr. Chairman, A Thaoisigh", or what do you do? If you do not know Irish and you merely want to follow a national line or a line which you think is national, you are quite safe, but if you happen to know the Irish language and want to speak English you are in difficulty. The only safe thing to do is to talk Irish, which is not always feasible. While I understand the Senator's anxiety, I think this is an ill-conceived amendment. It tends towards the ridiculous and does not tend towards the spread of the Irish language.
I do not at all agree with the philosophy we have listened to now from the Senator. It is in keeping with that of the Department of Agriculture when they did away with "Mise, le meas" and put down "Your obedient servant", to make sure that no word of the Irish language would appear on the page. If it is ridiculous to use the word "bainisteoir" in this measure as applied to a certain executive officer for a county, is it not equally ridiculous to use a similar term here in Seanad Éireann or in Dáil Éireann? After all, we should be consistent. I realise that a county manager or bainisteoir would not have the same degree of importance as the person who presides over Seanad Éireann or Dáil Éireann, but he is an important executive officer.
I submit that instead of doing damage to the Irish language it is setting an example and shows we are in earnest about the spread of the language. I agree with him that certain Irish speakers make use of words in the English language in their conversation, but why should that deflect us from doing what we consider is right? After all, there are several words which must be used now by native Irish speakers for which there were no equivalents when the Irish language was being spoken. I would ask the Seanad to consider again the advisability of accepting the amendment as a step towards advancing the cause of the Irish language and giving it some additional recognition here.
I regret that I am unable to accept this amendment, although I admire the spirit in which it has been proposed and the sentiments at the back of it. I live on the fringe of a Fior-Ghaeltacht, the largest in Ireland, and I have never yet heard the word "bainisteoir" used in it. It is a word we have recently coined. I know that in my part of the country we use "príomh-oifigeach" as the Irish for "manager" or else we use the English word "a mhanager," but we do not use it in that coined sense in which it is suggested here. I am prepared to accept the word "bainisteoir" in the Irish version and will use it in the Irish version of the Bill, but I cannot see why we should stick in this coined word in the English version of the Bill.
We had an unfortunate experience before, when the Constitution was being enacted. Unfortunately, the word "Eire" was used to describe the State in the English version of the Bill and I think all Parties were very glad indeed to accept the amendment of the then Deputy McDermott, who proposed that "Éire" should only be used in the Irish version and that when we referred to it in English it should be "Ireland". That is something we were glad to see inserted, but unfortunately some damage was done because outside this country the Republic of Ireland is known as "Éire" to distinguish it from the six north eastern counties. I am sorry, in one way, that we are prostituting the Irish language.
I would like to draw your attention to the definition that the Minister has given "prostituting the Irish language". There is no suggestion of prostitution of the Irish language in the amendment put down by the Senator to a Bill before this House.
When Deputy Keyes introduced a Bill here in 1950, a similar amendment was put down by the then Opposition. Deputy Keyes went out of his way to meet them by endeavouring to coin some expression which would give the true Irish interpretation of the word "manager." That Bill never became an Act and my predecessor, Deputy Smith, introduced a Bill here two years ago, but the then Government made no attempt whatever to deal with this and there was no suggestion made that the word "bainisteoir" should be inserted into the English version of the Bill. On the contrary, Deputy Major de Valera, speaking in the Dáil on the 1953 Bill, as reported in Volume 144, column 1080, of the Official Report, said:—
"I would be out of order if I were to digress into discussing the 1950 Bill, but I want to point out that when the matter was examined by the Parties then in power the best they could do was to make an adjustment. They changed the name of the county manager. Possibly there is no point in that. Frankly I think it is scarcely a matter worthy of legislation, except in the most incidental way."
That was the view that was expressed by Deputy Major de Valera, and I feel that I must agree with him.
On the Bill that had been introduced by Deputy Murphy as Minister?
Deputy Major de Valera was referring to the Bill introduced by Deputy Smith as Minister. I have given the quotation from his speech which was made during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. As I have said, I am in full agreement with him. We will use the expression "bainisteoir" in the Irish version, and I sincerely hope that it is the Irish version that will be interpreted when the Bill is being administered as an Act. My friend, Senator Walsh, knows that on very many occasions in our courts when both of us were interpreting legislation, we referred to the Irish version. Our interpretation was based on the Irish version and we did not refer to the English version. I sincerely hope that when we come to administer this Bill, after it becomes an Act, we will refer to the Irish version.
Let me say that I appreciate very much the motives which inspired Senator Kissane to put down this amendment. By doing so I do not think we are furthering the Irish language one scrap. I would rather hear two children endeavouring to speak the language rather than have the Oireachtas engaging in a discussion as to whether we should stick in an Irish word here and there in a Bill. If we are going to revive the Irish language, let us try and revive the spoken language. I do not think we are going to improve things by accepting an amendment such as this. As Senator Hayes pointed out, I recently heard an announcement on Radio Éireann in which An Tóstal was described as "The An Tóstal" and I saw published in some newspaper, "Dundalk: The An Tóstal". I think that is a disgraceful way of using words in the wrong context—"The An Tóstal".
Let us improve the language as much as we can.
If that is the only improvement we are going to make in it, then I am afraid we will be looking on it as a dead language in a very short time.
I am afraid that the Minister's approach to this question has not been along the proper lines. In fact, he brought in a number of red herrings to try and confuse the issue. I did not like his reference to the Constitution and the Irish language.
I would not dream of saying that intentionally, and I withdraw it.
I accept that from the Minister. That clears the air as far as that is concerned. I, with the Minister, would prefer to hear two children speaking the Irish language than to see "bainisteoir" inserted in this Bill, but at the same time that is an issue apart. Let us do everything to encourage the young people, the children, to make use of the Irish language, and let us do our part here in promoting the use of the Irish language.
I could not expect that everyone would have the same views as I have about the Irish language, but still we should not lose any opportunity of doing all we can to recognise the Irish language. This is one way of helping. Anyone in the country can just as easily pronounce the word "bainisteoir" as the word "manager". I understood the Minister to say that he was not pleased with the word "bainisteoir". If he thinks there is a better word, then let us have it by way of amendment on the Report Stage. Here is the Irish title of the Bill—"An Bille um Bainistí..." Bainistí is the word that has been supplied to us by the official Oireachtas translators. If the Minister is in favour of some other Irish title, we shall be only too delighted to accept it.
What is the difficulty in getting a unanimous decision about the word itself? I regret very much that I do not know Irish but my children can speak Irish well. If the Minister thinks there is a better word than the one proposed, would it not be well that the children should know it so that they can speak it? I do not think we should be wasting time in this way. We should come to agreement as to what is the proper word in Irish and then use it.
Can the Minister tell me the number of employees under local authorities who may be compelled, by reason of their employment, to use this particular word? We have 27 county councils in the Twenty-Six Counties and a number of urban councils, with all their officials. Could I have the number of their employees from the Minister? After all, they are the people immediately concerned, whom the Minister is, as it were, trying to shield by not making it obligatory on them to use this particular Irish word.
We have set up in this country a number of bodies such as Bord na Móna and C.I.E. In my opinion, one way of advancing the Irish language would be by getting all these bodies to use Irish words, particularly in the case of definitions relating to particular posts. In view of the fact that the Minister comes from a Gaeltacht area, I am very disappointed that he has not made a more sympathetic approach to this amendment. It is one on which the members of the House would not like to divide. I suggest that we can advance the Irish language in a small way by popularising the use of Irish definitions for particular posts. The Houses of the Oireachtas have already made vast contributions towards maintaining the Irish language in certain districts, but here, I suggest, is something we can do in a small way. I feel that the Minister should accept the amendment.
I think that the idea underlying the amendment is one on which it is difficult to speak dispassionately, because both the enthusiasts for and the adversaries of the Irish language tend to view it rather emotionally than rationally. I should like to put forward some personal views on this question. I should like to say that I do not feel this is a useful amendment for the following kind of reason. Senator Hawkins said that if such a change would advance the Irish revival, then we should bring it about. I should just like to put a question mark to that. Is this the way? Is this, in fact, a practical way of promoting the teaching of the language? I am a language teacher by profession, and I do not believe that the spread of the French language would be materially increased by now and again using a French word.
I am very much afraid that we have for a number of years fallen into the error of thinking that if we can say: "A chara", "A Chathaoirligh" or "Mise le meas" we have done the best we can for the Irish language. The suggestion now is that instead of saying "county manager" we should say "bainisteoir". If we do that much, then we have raised our hat to the Irish language for the day. I suggest that this practice and attitude of mind has, in fact, done nothing over the past 30 years to spread either the real use of the language as a living medium, or even what is more serious perhaps, to increase ordinary respect for the language.
I am afraid that the use of an odd phrase like that tends to be regarded by the ordinary people in this country as just a kind of face-saving device on the part of the people who either cannot learn, will not learn, or have no intention of learning Irish, but who, for a variety of reasons, are afraid to admit it in public. This amendment is put forward in a very sincere spirit by a Senator who, in fact, does employ the language fluently and frequently, but the general attitude in regard to the use of an Irish word here and there is, I am afraid, an example of paying lip-service to the language, when, in fact, consciously or unconsciously, we have already recognised that any chance there may have been 30 years ago of really reviving the Irish language as a spoken tongue has long since gone.
I take as an example of that, the fact that the Department of Education itself issues a report, and gives us a lot of statistics about the number of schools teaching Irish and teaching the various subjects through the medium of Irish, and about the number that do not. The medium through which the Department of Education communicates with the public in this report, however—the most recently issued one (1951-52)—is the medium of the English language. It is not true, I admit, to say that there is no Irish in the report. There are a few pages and paragraphs here and there but the document itself is not translated into Irish. I am afraid that that represents the realistic attitude in Ireland to-day.
With regard to the Irish language I should like to say this. When the time comes for it to disappear, as I think it is coming, as a spoken tongue, whether it will be because of the policy in this country for the past 30 years or in spite of it—this is not the time to debate that—I think we shall have lost something precious and I am afraid we shall have lost that thing while trying to replace it by a sort of Civil Service substitute. I do not mean any offence to the Civil Service when I say that. I think the term "Civil Service Irish" has a meaning: An "Irish" which throws in odd words now and again like "mise le meas""banisiteoir,""Taoiseach" or "Tánaiste," without, in fact, making any serious attempt at all to speak the language as a real language. We might as well forget the deceit that we are practising, if not upon others then, perhaps, upon ourselves, if all we can do is to substitute one Irish word now and again for an English one.
We ought to recognise in this country that whatever our feelings, our indignant emotions may be at having had a language beaten into us in the past, we ought nevertheless to recognise that in the world to-day because we are a small nation speaking English better than any other English-speaking country in the world—not excluding England—that that fact has been a blessing in disguise to this country, and that a great amount of the power and the prestige of Ireland in the world to-day are due to the fact not only that we speak English but that we speak and write it so well.
Why should we not speak the Irish language as well?
Might I say one or two words? My philosophy was talked about. This is not a question of philosophy. It is a practical question of whether it is of any conceivable use to the Irish language or the Irish movement to take out the word "manager" and insert "bainisteoir". I do not think it is and I have given my reasons already. It is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of language, how it develops, grows and decays.
With regard to something which was said about dividing on this question, anyone who likes can divide the House on this question but let it not be thought that the House is being divided on the basis that those who vote to retain the word "manager" are against the Irish language and those who vote for the word "bainisteoir" are the white-garmented devotees of the Irish language. That is not so. This amendment has no practical basis and there are no practical arguments for it. I am against it because I think that instead of advancing the Irish language it tends to keep on making a mockery of the language.
I have only a few more words to say on the matter. I wonder if the Senator who moved the amendment thought of the new expressions which we will introduce into the English version? We will introduce "county bainisteoir", "assistant county bainisteoir". Again, we will have "city bainisteoir" and "assistant city bainisteoir". That is what we will have to do if we accept the amendment. There is no doubt about that.
We would leave ourselves in the position of having no definition whatsoever of "county manager" and that is a very vital definition having regard to the terms of the various Management Acts already passed. If the amendment were accepted it would have the effect of leaving the word "manager" without any meaning whatsoever. Have we done a lot for the Irish language by changing the name of the national transport company to Córas Iompair Éireann?
We do not. We recognise it as C.I.E. Senator Hawkins referred to it as C.I.E.
That is the short way of saying it.
If we have to depend on that to revive the Irish language we might as well stop. Again, this is an Act which will have to be construed by the courts and I can see some of my legal colleagues turning it into "Bean an tí" if not "Bean sí". If, unfortunately, we have to use the English version let us use it but do not let us make another C.I.E. out of it. I wonder how many Senators are there in this House or Deputies in the other House who could pronounce Córas Iompar Éireann? There is an office known as Oifig na Gaeltachta agus na gCeantar gCúng. I wonder are there ten people in the House who can pronounce that properly?
They are better than that.
When I find people, responsible Senators, referring to Córas Iompar Éireann here as C.I.E. for the purpose of an argument that I should use the word "bainisteoir" in the English version of the Act, and the words "county bainisteoir", "assistant county bainisteoir", "city bainisteoir", and "assistant city bainisteoir" I withdraw the word I used in the beginning as far as the Senator is concerned. I would like him to realise that I appreciate what he has done and is doing for the Irish language—much more, possibly, than most people do. He uses it here on every occasion he possibly can.
For the purpose of bringing this discussion to a close I would like to ask one question. Is the Minister aware, is Senator Hayes aware, that in official correspondence between the post office and a postmaster, the postmaster is referred to as a "maistir poist"?
Yes and we have fo-mhaistir phoist.
Well we have it in that case and there is no humbug about that.
I would like you to hear it pronounced sometimes. You would not recognise it.
The public do not know it. They always look for the postmaster.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment withdrawn?
I suppose I have to withdraw it. I have no assistance from the other side of the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (1), line 35, before "by" to insert "at any time".
As the section relates to a specified executive function and as a resolution may not apply to all such functions I have brought this amendment to clarify the position. I consider it desirable that a resolution may not be passed at any meeting of the local authority, otherwise it is not clear that a resolution would apply, for instance, to the full term of the local authority. "At any time" is used in Section 11 where it states that at any time after they have adopted an estimate of expenses a resolution may be passed. The position may be all right, but I am anxious that the Minister should at least have his attention drawn to the necessity or otherwise of this particular amendment.
I am indeed very glad that my legal friend has brought this to our notice. I have consulted my legal advisers and they informed me that there is no necessity for the amendment at all. I would refer the Senator to sub-section (2) which provides that a resolution can apply to any particular case or occasion or to every case or occasion of the performance of the specified function. I think that clearly indicates the position. I know what the Senator has in mind and I am with him but I am advised that the section as it stands does not require amendment. This is merely a drafting amendment.
I do not wish to press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (1), line 37, before "of" where it secondly occurs to insert "of his proposal and".
The Minister has used the word "proposals" in the Second Reading and the word "proposals" is also used in the White Paper. If the word "manner" only is used the local authority may be denied the full information required by them, namely the actual proposals of the manager. I think, therefore, that the word "proposals" should be included.
I am afraid that the amendment is meaningless to me. In the first place a proposal is not a function and no person ever intended that it should be interpreted as a function. The manager performs the executive function and under Section 2 the elected members can require him in the case of a specified function to tell them how he proposes to perform it. I am sure that if the Senator looks at it carefully he will see that his point is covered. The members must specify the function about which a resolution is brought in under sub-section (2). The manager could not possibly tell the members the manner in which he intends to perform a function without telling them first what the function is. It is quite clear that a proposal is not a function and I think the Senator would agree with me.
In view of the fact that the Minister states in his Second Reading speech that the manager is to inform them of his proposals I would respectfully suggest that the word "manner" is not sufficient and that the local authority may not get all the information they require if it is restricted entirely to the word "manner".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:—
To delete sub-section (3).
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think it would be well if we took amendments Nos. 4 and 10 together and then if necessary we can have a decision on each of them if the House is agreeable.
This proposal of mine proposes to delete sub-section (3) of Section 2. It is very difficult to speak on this particular sub-section without making a very definite reference to Section 6. We have here provision made by the Minister whereby the local authority is empowered to do certain things. My amendment proposes that we should delete sub-section (3). Sub-section (3) of Section 2 proposes that a resolution under this section shall not apply to certain things. When we direct our attention to Section 6 I think it is again sub-section (3) which provides that the manager shall not fix an increased or reduced rate of remuneration applicable to any class or description of persons. The purpose of this sub-section, to my mind, is to remove from the local authority any powers that they may have or that they may wish to exercise in relation to making recommendations to the manager in relation to the various offices that might be employed by a local authority. Either we should delete sub-section (3) of this section or we should delete sub-section (2) because to my mind both these sub-sections are contrary to each other.
We have here provision in one section whereby the manager may not do certain things. Among the things he may not do is to make recommendations to the Minister to increase the remuneration of any local authority employee. I would like, before we proceed further with this amendment, that the Minister would give us some explanation as to the method of operation of sub-section (3) of Section 2 and sub-section (3) of Section 6.
Since its inception it has been a fundamental principle of the Management Act that a county manager or a city manager, as the case might be, would have the sole responsibility for staff. It has never been suggested at any time that a local authority should have the responsibility for staff. One could imagine what would happen if they had. It has never been suggested in any of the amending Bills which were to have been enacted that the principle of giving the manager authority over the staff should be departed from. Now under Section 4, which is the requisition section, staff matters are excluded and if they are excluded from the scope of Section 4 there is no point in bringing them into Section 2. Absolutely none. With regard to Section 6, sub-section (3)—I think it was the Senator who referred to it—this section is completely independent of anything that members may ask for under Section 2 because the manager himself is obliged under Section 6 to bring before the members any proposals he may intend to make to the Minister before he does so. They are completely different things. If we accept amendment No. 4 as it stands now it would be ridiculous unless we put a similar amendment into Section 4 of the Bill and it cuts completely across the fundamental principle of the County Management Act from its very inception. On that account I regret I cannot accept the amendment.
I am glad to hear the Minister's case in regard to this amendment—that it cuts across entirely the principles of the County Management Act—but I understood that when the Bill was first introduced into this House and into the Dáil that it would contain proposals that would make available to the members of the local authorities powers that they were deprived of under the present legislation.
By amending present legislation, yes.
We approached this Bill from the point of view that we were anxious to amend it. This was one of the sections which we were particulary anxious to amend. What is the case the Minister has made? His case is that certain Oireachtas enactments over the years are not in conformity with the Bill. I do not think that is a very good case. On the Second Reading of the Bill the Minister threw out the suggestion that he would welcome amendments which would tend to make this a much better Bill than it was, but if we are to take seriously his approach to one of the first amendments to the Bill in this House we must conclude that he is not as sincere to-day as he was when he threw out that suggestion.
I should like seriously to ask the Minister and this House to reconsider the proposals contained in this section and to relate them to what is contained in Section 6 and if the Minister, his parliamentary draftsmen and his advisers are satisfied that there is not something contradictory in these two sections, then the only thing we can do is to draw the Minister's serious attention to these matters. I would sincerely ask the Minister to reconsider his approach to this matter. I think if he does that he will be doing something very conducive to the proper application of this section. There are other amendments to this section and I had hoped from the Minister's attitude on the Second Reading, that he would have put down an amendment also. Seeing that he has not, there is nothing left to us except to support any other amendment aimed at drawing the Minister's attention to these matters.
To my mind there are only two sections in this Bill. I think I have drawn the Minister's attention and the attention of the House to that fact— that the only two sections in this Bill are Section 2 and Section 4. Reference has been made to Section 16. Section 16 deprives the members of local authorities of any powers they may have had, and if we are not in a position to improve matters by amending Sections 2 and 4, then the Bill is just as we expected it would be.
Indeed, I was very glad to hear Senator Hawkins informing this House that the only two sections in this Bill are Sections 2 and 4. Those are the two sections I have added to Deputy Smith's Bill. Those are the sections which I have tried to tell the Dáil were the two most important sections in the Bill, but practically every Fianna Fáil speaker in the Dáil said there was nothing in either of the two sections. I am very glad Senator Hawkins realises the value of Sections 2 and 4. I appreciate Party politics do not enter into this House, but we cannot close our eyes to the fact that Senator Hawkins is a very worthy member of a political Party and that he is cutting completely across the line which they took in the Dáil. It was never suggested by any speaker on the Fianna Fáil Benches that they wished local authorities to acquire control over staffs, and I must say that of all the local authorities I have interviewed, not one of them suggested they should have control over staffs. There is no inconsistency whatever between Sections 2, 4 and 6. Section 6 relates to general increases in the number of staff and to general increases in the remuneration of staff. Under Section 6, the initiative must be taken by the manager, remember, and not by the local authority. The local authority has no power of initiation under Section 6, so that there is no inconsistency whatever.
I welcome these amendments. It is a very good thing we should discuss them in the friendly, intelligent and constructive manner in which we are discussing them, and I am very much obliged to Senator Hawkins not only for putting down this amendment, but the other amendments, because he has given the House an opportunity of discussing them. If I thought that this was what the local authorities wanted, if I thought it was what Dáil Éireann wanted, I would have no hesitation in accepting the amendment, but I consulted the parties concerned and I consulted Dáil Éireann, and I got no suggestions that this power should be given to the local authority. As I say, however, it is a good thing that we should discuss the matter here.
When speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, I tried to stress that what I should like to see in the Bill was that the members of the local authority would be the policy makers and the manager the man to carry out the policy decided on by the representatives of the people, and it was for that reason that I put down the amendment for the deletion of sub-section (3). I did that completely on my own, although that might be doubted, because of the coupling of my name with that of Senator Hawkins to the amendment. The provision in this sub-section is the provision which I felt runs counter to the principle I was trying to get into the Bill, in that everything concerning the servants of a local authority was the sole responsibility of the manager.
For instance, if a man in the employment of a local authority has fallen down on the job—I do not say this now by way of condemning the staffs of local authorities, but there will be black sheep in every fold—and that fact becomes rather widely known, as time goes on. When some of the people who have to foot the bill for the maintenance in office of that man realise the situation, it is to a member of the local authority that they will go and say: "Why do you not do something about so-and-so, because other men on the staff will say that they are fools to work while he gets away with it". It is to the member of a local authority that these people are bound to go and they will not approach the manager.
I hope the member of the local authority will approach the manager.
It seems to me from the way things are that it is very hard for him to know what number door he should knock at in order to approach the manager. This provision seems to be made specially for the purpose of ruling him out. If such a man had given bad service, the local authority members would not have an opportunity of telling the manager that he could not add years to the man's bad service for pension purposes, as I read it. I am not a lawyer; I am only the man in the street; but I cannot read anything into it but that it is specially inserted to tell a member of a local authority: "You are a member of a local authority inasmuch as 1,000 or 1,200 people were foolish enough to support you, but remember that the manager is the man, when you go inside the council chamber. You are there to please these 1,000 or 1,200 people, but you must bear in mind that you dare not interfere with the staff. They are his good boys and you cannot interfere, even though you realise that they are not doing their job. He is fond of them all and they must remain there."
That sub-section should definitely be deleted, because it is a humiliating sub-section, as we will realise if we think of ourselves, not as Senators, but as members of local authorities. It is humiliating in that a person can be in an office of trust, an office with good emoluments attaching to it, and can look in derision on the local representatives of his county, be it large or small, so long as the manager is sufficiently merciful or charitable to tolerate him. We dare not say anything to him. That is definitely a humiliating situation and I would not like this House to pass any provision that would have the effect of perpetuating that situation.
I appeal to the Minister to make some alteration which will give public representatives some status, because they are completely debarred under this provision, and the manager is free at all times to decide on everything. If, for instance, the question of the superannuation of an officer who had served badly comes up for consideration and the manager thinks well to add a couple of years to his service to bring him up to full pension, and if the local representatives disagree with him and carry the day against him, the manager can still appeal to the Minister, so that he is not being cut out. I appeal to the Minister to see if there is some provision which he could substitute for this. I should be prepared to meet the Minister halfway, if he could provide some substitute which would put the representatives of the people in the position in which they should be, because they are footing the bill. The trouble is that, although they pay the piper, they dare not call the tune.
We are discussing now two amendments and I think that several speakers, not excluding the Minister, have referred to them as if they contained the same principle—amendments Nos. 4 and 10 —but, as the debate has gone, so far, I find myself inclined to vote for amendment No. 4 but against amendment No. 10 for the reason that amendment No. 4 relates to Section 2.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
May I inform the Senator that, while the two amendments are taken together for discussion purposes, a separate decision may be had?
I realise that. I was making the point that some Senators, and the Minister himself, seemed to suggest that the amendment to Section 2 aims at giving a local authority power over the staff. I do not think that is so, and I suggest to the Minister that he should consider again just what are the implications of amendment No. 4. Section 2 does not refer to any power over anybody, except the right of the members of the local authority to be given prior information about proposals on which the city or county manager is going to act.
I find myself in sympathy with amendment No. 4, which suggests that if the manager is exercising his function in relation to staff there is no reason why he should not give prior information of his intentions. I do not think it is quite just to suggest that the object of this amendment No. 4 is to give the local authority "power" over the staff, or take that power away from the manager. I think it is quite legitimate to ask—as the amendment standing in the name of three Senators does —that before the manager takes action in relation to these things, he shall give prior information as to the kind of action he proposes to take. I do not see why he should not do that in relation to action affecting staff, as in relation to any other action. It seems to me that, so far, the Minister has made no very strong case against amendment No. 4, which would simply give the local authority the right to obtain this information about action over which they have no control under this section.
On the other hand, amendment No. 10 specifically asks that more power be given to local authorities to "require" certain action from the manager in relation to staff. There I feel the Minister has made a good case. I should not like to say I understand all the implications, but it might be unwise to change the Bill. Therefore, if it comes to a vote, I would vote in favour of amendment No. 4, and against amendment No. 10, as I think the principle is different.
I think Senator Hartney misconstrued not only the section but the amendment. He gave an example of a servant or officer of a local authority who is not doing his official functions correctly. The section does not prohibit members of a local authority from giving information to a county manager: it merely debars them from obtaining information. These are two different things. I was very glad indeed to hear Senator Sheehy Skeffington. If I did not reply or refer to amendment No. 4, it is simply because, in my opinion, the amendment is not necessary.
It is most difficult, as I found on my itinerary round the country, to refer to all existing legislation. I found— just as I find, unfortunately, here— that most members of local authorities did not know the power they have. I would refer the Senator and the House now to Section 27 of the County Management Act of 1940, which still is the law and will remain the law after the passing of this Act.
"Every county manager shall whenever requested by the council of his county or by an elective body for which he is the manager or by the chairman of such council or of any such body so to do, afford to such council, body, or chairman (as the case may require) all such information as may be in the possession or procurement of such county manager in regard to any act, matter, or thing appertaining to or concerning any business or transaction of such council or body (as the case may be) which is mentioned in such request."
I do not see that they require any more power than that.
Does that cover information as to what the manager intends to do in the future about staff?
No, that is the difference. They may obtain all the information they require about the staff. Senator Hartney gave me valuable advice when I visited Limerick and I thank him indeed for it. When I asked the representatives there did they want to interfere in the control of staff, I was told they did not. The Senator will agree with me that there was no request made to me that they should have such permission. There were only two people in the whole country whom I interviewed who made that request to me.
There are very many reasons for this. If they have the power to requisition under Section 4 in regard to staff, I can see many road gangers or engineers being transferred from one district to another, possibly on account of political feeling of some description. I can see many things happening. They are powers which no councillor wants, according to the views expressed to me. I am certain the Senator would be the last person to desire any control over the staff, but so far as information is concerned the power is there to requisition it under Section 27 of the 1940 Act.
The only difference between that and this provision is that one refers to the future and the other refers to past acts. That is as reasonable as I could be in the matter.
I agree with Senator Sheehy Skeffington that I could not accept amendment No. 10. We give the local authority a considerable amount of power over salary increases or decreases and the personnel of permanent staff under Section 6, but that is a general power and does not refer to individual cases. I think that should suffice. I understand that since the passing of the 1940 Act that Section 27 was not invoked more than four or five times all over the country. I am satisfied that local authorities did not know such a section existed. If they invoke Section 2 and Section 4, I think we have gone a long way towards giving them all the powers which they have sought.
This is one of the most important sections of the Bill and we should consider it in relation to Section 6 to see what exactly we are doing. Those of us who are members of local authorities should be quite clear as to the legislation we are proposing here. We are depriving ourselves as local representatives of certain opportunities. We are giving to the county manager authority to recommend to the Minister. It will be no harm for me to read, for the benefit of the House, Section 3:—
"A resolution under sub-section (1) of this section shall not apply or extend to the performances of any function of the manager in relation to the officers or servants of a local authority or the control, supervision, service, remuneration, privileges or superannuation of such officers or servants or any of them, and any resolution purporting to be"
passed by this democratic body of the local county council assembled, shall not have effect if it is in relation to any of these functions aforesaid in sub-section (3) of Section 2 of this 1954 County Management Bill. In Section 6 we have a contradictory set of circumstances put before us.
Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
Before we adjourned, I think we put a proposal before the Minister that we would like to have him give his views on this particular section. Having regard to the fact that there has been put before the people of this country a suggestion that this Bill, which the Minister is now putting before this House, will give much more opportunities, much more facilities to the elected representatives of the various county councils we would like to have from the Minister something more elaborate, something more definite as to what their future functions will be.
We have, I think, put before the Minister our views on what we would like the elected representatives of the people to have in the way of powers, but if the Minister has some more powers other than those we suggest on this particular Bill, we would like him to give us an opportunity of discussing these particular powers.
The discussion on the amendments has brought to light some important points. It is accepted, as the Minister said, that county councils have absolute power to secure from the manager all information they require in regard to his past actions and, under this section, they have power to secure information in regard to future actions in a certain limited field. However, in regard to his control of staff, the county council are absolutely debarred from obtaining information as to what the manager intends to do. I have been wondering whether it is right that county councils should be so restricted. I feel that, on ordinary routine matters of day-to-day discipline of staff, a manager is entitled to have fairly complete control but when there is a proposal to dismiss or demote officers of the manager's staff it is a question whether the manager should take that action without consulting members of his council. It is a very drastic step. Furthermore, it is rather disconcerting for publicly-elected representatives to open their copy of the managerial orders and read that certain officers of the county council staff have been dismissed or demoted or even, in some cases, promoted—although I would not attach so much importance in regard to promotion because I think everyone would agree that, in most cases, it is not a question that would be seriously disputed.
I have personal experience of a situation that arose in this way. The members of the county council were unaware of the action taken until it was too late to do anything about it. The manager met the council in the fairest possible way and gave full information as to the course of his investigation and even of the findings in his inquiries which led to the dismissal. However, as a council, we felt we could not approve of one particular action of the manager and that was in regard to the demotion of the man who had brought to light the serious situation which led to the dismissal. I feel that if the council had been consulted in advance in such a serious matter the action taken would have been of a different nature and, on the whole, would have been fairer.
While county councils have been derided and condemned in many ways by many people I think it will always be found that in a body of 21, 25 or 27 persons there is a fairly impartial and reasonable outlook. I was wondering if, in regard to serious matters relating perhaps to termination of the employment of permanent officers of the Department—to put it that way— it might not be wiser to ensure that the council would have prior knowledge of the manager's intentions.
I should just like briefly to appeal to the Minister to give us some positive reason why amendment No. 4 should not be accepted. I think he has given us some cogent reasons why amendment No. 10 would give far more power than his Government are at present prepared to contemplate giving to a local authority—power over staff, and so forth.
As I pointed out, amendment No. 4 on the other hand would simply give a local authority the right to get "prior information" about future action affecting staff, service, superannuation and so forth. The Minister has said that they already have the power to obtain any information they want about past actions. However, it is quite clear that local authorities are now, under this section as a whole, being given more power to acquire information. I have not yet heard a positive reason why this particular clause—subsection (3)—should be there, for the purpose of depriving them of the right of getting prior information about future action affecting staff. I would say, furthermore, if such information is not readily available, before the event, to the members of local authorities, then their effective power will be diminished.
I think it is quite clear that no damage could be done by giving them the right to ask, by resolution, for this information. I do not see what harm could be done, and I do not think the Minister mentioned what harm could be done. He said they had the right to information about past actions, but he did not say why they should not have information about future actions.
I would accept his view that it might be dangerous to give the power of "requiring" the manager to do certain things—to take actions about the staff, and so forth; that would mean that power over the staff would pass into the hands of the local authority. I am prepared to accept the Minister's argument about that, but I have not heard positive arguments as to why the local authority should be refused prior information about what the manager proposes to do. Therefore, I still feel that amendment No. 4 should be accepted by the Minister.
Listening to this debate, one would imagine that a county manager may dismiss a servant or officer of the local authority and that ends the matter—that the officer or servant has no redress. That is not so. Such servant or officer has the right to appeal to the Minister. As I said on the Second Reading, we propose to make available to servants of local authorities the arbitration proceedings which are now available to others in this country. They will have the right to go before the Labour Court.
I have been asked why prior information cannot be given about the intentions of managers when dealing with their staffs. I can imagine a council meeting and a councillor getting up and saying: "We want to know if you intend to dismiss so-and-so." That could happen if I allowed this amendment to go.
It would have to be by resolution passed.
Even if it is a resolution.
It could not be just one councillor.
Would the Senator read the section as it stands? Supposing a resolution were passed that before a county manager dismissed any official of the council he would have to give prior information and supposing a gentleman got up and said: "We have already requisitioned you under Section 2 to give us this information. We want to know are you going to dismiss so-and-so." If such a resolution had already been passed, say at the beginning of the year, an individual could stand up and say that.
Again, in many cases you may have a servant or an officer of the local authority who is associating with some undesirable in an area. The county manager will use his discretion, I presume, and transfer that individual, say, to another part of the county or another part of the jurisdiction. It would be very unfair if a councillor of a local authority could stand up and demand to know why this individual was transferred. He may have some hidden vice known to the county manager only. It would be very unfair to publicise it.
Under the present legislation could the council not ask for the information immediately the transfer was made?
If the Senator would read the section he would see it must be by resolution of a majority of the council.
But the same applies to the present proposal. It would have to be a majority resolution.
It would not, for the simple reason that a council may, under Section 2 of the Bill, requisition the county manager, provided the amendment were accepted, to give them all details of future dealings with servants or officers. It may be a reasonable enough resolution but once it is passed then an individual member of the council may stand up and demand, on foot of the resolution already passed, that he should get the history of an individual which the council in passing the original resolution never anticipated.
Under Section 27 of the 1940 Act the majority of the council, or the chairman alone without the majority of the council, may seek the information and, after all, it is taken that the chairman is the spokesman and has the confidence of the entire council and he may obtain it. I could imagine some officer falling into some disease, the nature of which he would prefer not to have exposed. I could imagine some councillor with malice aforethought demanding why so-and-so was absent for three, four or five days. Would that be fair?
Surely that has nothing to do with asking what are the manager's proposals for future action? That has nothing to do with why a servant was absent.
Of course it has. The manager may know that such a thing may recur. He may know that it may be necessary to have him out of the locality by a certain period or by a certain time. He may have proposals for the transfer of that man from the particular locality at a certain time. I need not go into details on that. The Senator is as good a judge of human nature as I am and it would be unfair that the private life of these officials should be exposed to criticism in the open forum of a local council.
One can imagine, say, a competition being held and, in advance, the council requiring certain information about the staff whom the manager is going to recommend, why he will not recommend certain individuals. They could do that if the amendment were accepted. Would that be fair? As I say, it cuts across the very fundamentals of county management which we all accept now. As I said at the outset this Bill is a Bill to amend the County Management Act, not to repeal it. I consulted local authorities as to what they wanted and they told me. Section 27 of the 1940 Act has been accepted down through the years as quite sufficient as an information section. The only reason why we have put Section 2 into the present Bill is to enable local authorities to invoke Section 4. As I said, Section 27 of the 1940 Act was quite sufficient for local authorities up to the present but here we want to give the local authority some power over the county manager to direct him to do certain things. They will not know in advance unless they have some section such as Section 2 to tell them what his proposals are but it was never envisaged that the proposals should govern staff.
I do not wish to treat lightly these amendments that are put down because I know they are suggested in good faith and I am very glad indeed of the opportunity of discussing them. I hope I have convinced the House that there is no necessity for them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:—
To delete sub-section (5).
This amendment is on a par with the previous amendment we were discussing. That was directly under local government, whereas this is directly under health. Sub-section (5) takes away from local authorities the right of being the framers of policy. It reads:—
"A resolution under sub-section (1) of this section shall not apply or extend to the performance of any of the individual health functions of a local authority, and any resolution purporting to be passed under sub-section (1) of this section which contravenes this sub-section shall be void."
This is the question we were discussing of the withdrawal of power from the representatives.
I am sure the Senator would not want them to know about the diseases, and so on, from which people suffered.
This is not the Minister for Health.
This is merely individual health functions. The Senator will find it in the definition section if he refers to it.
I do not wish to press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (7), paragraph (b), line 17, before "in" to insert "whether by grant or otherwise".
It is very important that members of local authorities should be made aware of the expenditure from grants from, say, the Department of Local Government, grants for main or county roads, and of the other grants which they receive. The Minister on the Second Reading of the Bill referred to works of a capital nature. I suggest that, according to the section, if the expenditure under a local authority is not from moneys provided by the ratepayers, the manager need not give the information. Therefore, the local authority may be deprived of the information by the manager. I suggest that it is desirable to amend the sub-section by the insertion of the words "whether by grant or otherwise". For instance, if the Department of Health gives a 100 per cent. grant for the erection of a hospital, that is not expenditure by the local authority and therefore the manager may say that under the section it is not mandatory on him to supply the information.
I think the Senator is misconstruing the section. I respectfully suggest to the House that there is no necessity for the amendment because the sub-section makes it mandatory on the manager to inform the members before he commits the local authority to expenditure on works of a capital nature. He must give this information irrespective of whether the proposed works will be paid for entirely out of a local authority's own resources or whether they will be paid for partly or wholly out of State grants.
If the Senator will read paragraph (b) of sub-section (7) he will see that what I have said is perfectly clear. Under sub-section (2), which is the information section, the manager must give the information if requested to do so by the local authority. If the local authority should neglect to ask for certain information, the manager must, under paragraph (b) of sub-section (7) provide it with the information in a case where he is going to involve it in expenditure.
I think there is an important point in the case which Senator Walsh has made. Take, for example, the allocation of a tourist grant somewhere in Donegal or Leitrim. Suppose the manager elects to take the view: "Well, there is no expenditure by the local authority in this case and the onus is not on me to inform the Leitrim or Donegal County Councils of my intentions in regard to the expenditure of this money", this amendment, I submit, if accepted, would provide against a contingency of that sort arising.
A simple resolution under sub-section (2) will enable the local authority to get all the information it wants.
The Minister on the Second Reading referred to works of a capital nature. I suggest that grants from the National Development Fund or from the Road Fund are not for works of a capital nature or grants which come through the Board of Works.
A resolution under sub-section (2) will ensure that information in regard to all these grants must be given.
Why does the Minister not wish to include the words in my amendment so as to make the position perfectly clear?
If a resolution is passed under sub-section (2) all the information required can be obtained in advance.
The Minister says there is no necessity for the amendment.
There is not. This section is intended for local authorities which neglect to adopt a resolution under sub-section (2) in advance.
Does the Minister still agree that a grant from the Road Fund is not for work of a capital nature?
I think there is a point in the amendment which has been moved by Senator Walsh. I know that recently the South Tipperary County Council passed a resolution asking that the members should be made aware of grants received from the Road Fund, particularly the 100 per cent. grants for new bridges, etc. I wonder is it desirable that each county council should have to seek out this information which the manager ought to give? I do not think we ought to put the county manager or the county engineer in a position in which they can say: "We can just carry on unless we have to go to the county council for funds." I think they ought to make the necessary information available without having to be asked to give it. There is a great deal of expenditure on various types of work. Sometimes the ratepayers, and we are all ratepayers, may not like the way in which money is being spent. If some proposal had previously been brought before the council it would have had an opportunity of discussing it, and of asking for the reasons why it was thought desirable to spend money on it. I think that as well as a thing being right it ought to appear to be right. If what I have stated is the reason why Senator Walsh has brought forward this amendment, I would ask the Minister to consider it.
I do not see what harm the clarification which would be effected by the acceptance of Senator Walsh's amendment would do, and I really think the Minister should consider it. He has not made a good case against it. He has said that it is obligatory already on the county manager to give the information, whether the money in question is by way of grant or otherwise, and that all moneys passing through the hands of the county council would be treated as if they had been raised by it. That, in substance, is, I think, what the Minister said. If my interpretation of it is not correct I am sorry.
May I bring this to the notice of the House because it tears the bottom out of the argument that has been put up against the acceptance of the amendment? I suggest to the Minister and to the House that moneys expended by local authorities in many counties come from the Employment Schemes Office, and I am sure the Minister and members of the House are aware that this particular office has issued a circular warning the officials of local authorities that they were on no account to give information to the members in relation to them.
There was no authority up to now to do so, and we are trying to amend the law.
I assert that what I have stated has happened. I am not denying that it might not be a good thing in certain cases. I am not attacking the principle but I am stating the fact that it has so happened. If the amendment which we are discussing which would make it obligatory on a manager, if the council so desires to seek such information, is not accepted then the council would be able to decide themselves once they passed a resolution. I do not think the Minister was correct in what he stated in view of the fact that the Special Employment Schemes Office issued during the recent past a direction to officers of local authorities who spend money for them through the agency of the local authority that certain information was not to be given to the members of the local authority.
It seems to me that the Minister may find himself in trouble in the future if he accepts an amendment of this kind where the word "expenditure" seems to be ambiguous. Suppose the county council does not pass a resolution. Suppose a county manager does not give information in regard to the expenditure because it does not come out of local funds then there may well be trouble. I would suggest that the Minister would save himself and the county manager trouble if he defined the word "expenditure" a little bit more clearly in the Bill.
What is the objection to the amendment?
It was not until I heard Senator Walsh speak the last time that I realised what was at the back of his mind. I can assure the House that I would have no hesitation whatever in accepting the amendment if I thought it was necessary. What the amendment purports to do is already incorporated in the section. One would imagine, listening to Senators speak here, that grants from the Special Employment Schemes Office come down to the county council and that the manager puts them in one pocket and dishes them out around the area and that they do not in any way intermingle with the funds in the other pocket which come out of the rates. That is not so. State grants go through the accounts. They are credited to the accounts in the very same way as the rates are. They are expenditure by the local authority and the county manager, under the section as it stands, must give all the information. I would ask the House to take my assurance for that. That is the intention of the section and it is quite clear. I was unaware of the intention behind the amendment in the beginning, but I can assure Senator Walsh that if I were satisfied that the amendment was necessary I would have no hesitation whatever in accepting it. I am satisfied that the section as it stands covers the matter.
The trouble is that paragraph (b) of sub-section (7) of Section 2 says:—
"Before committing the local authority to any expenditure."
I think the word "committing" indicates that the expenditure is going to be from moneys provided by the local authority.
Not at all. The parliamentary draftsman advises me otherwise and I am afraid I must be guided by him.
Senator O'Reilly has already said that in connection with the employment grants members of local authorities are not made aware at the moment of the particular amount. The Minister says that this section is not sufficient. Then he refers us back to sub-section (1) of Section 2, but in sub-section (7) it is mandatory whereas it would be necessary for the local authority to pass a resolution each time.
I did not realise what the Senator's point was in the beginning but I am now quite satisfied that it will be mandatory on the manager to give all information.
Could the Minister visualise any case in which expenditure would be incurred and where the manager would not have to supply that information?
What about a regional hospital where the money is provided by the Hospitals' Trust Fund?
It goes into the local authority's accounts and when it comes out it is expenditure.
I am not quite satisfied that the Minister is quite right in taking the view that grants sanctioned by the Special Employment Schemes Office can be regarded as ordinary grants or expenditure. I believe the county council engineer is an agent carrying out extra work for the Special Employment Schemes Office. I do not think they can be at all regarded as being in the same category as grants received from the Department of Local Government or from the Road Fund. I did not argue at all it would be desirable that individual members of a council should trot to a county manager's or engineer's office and go through matters of rural improvement schemes, and schemes initiated in many cases by individuals, but in certain cases it might be desirable that the whole council might request certain information in regard to a particular scheme. The manager might elect to take the view that since the county engineers are the officers on a county council they are only agents in the operation of such a work. It does not appear to me to be clear at any rate that it is obligatory on the county manager to give information where there is not a contribution from the county council. The Minister may say it is not necessary but a few extra words will not make the Bill a bad Bill or the Act a bad Act. I think the Minister should accept the amendment. It will do the Bill no harm.
Is the Minister not prepared to accept the amendment?
He is not. We have got to depend on the parliamentary draftsman when it comes to drafting and all I can ask the draftsman is to give me an assurance. The draftsman assures me that the point is covered.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Not if the Minister looks into it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In line 30, before "and" to insert "or that it may be deferred or transferred to other works".
The wording of this section appears to me to restrict. I suggest it would be better to give the council the option of deferring the work for a time or transferring the amount to some other work considered more important. That is the reason I brought in the amendment.
Again, I think there is no necessity for the amendment. I think the amendment seeks to provide that if a council is not satisfied that certain moneys allocated for a certain purpose are not carried out on that particular job the council may request the manager to defer. They may do that under Section 4 of the Bill and requisition the county manager to expend it somewhere else.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 11:—
Before Section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—
"Section 2 of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, is hereby amended by the addition of the following paragraph to sub-section (1):—
‘(d) rate collectors.'"
The section which is referred to in the quoted part of this amendment, Section 2 of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, sets out the offices to which the Local Authorities Act, 1926, applies, and the insertion of the proposed new section in the present Bill would amend the Local Authorities Act, 1926, to include specifically rate collectors. In effect it would keep the appointment of rate collectors out of the hands of the councillors and corporators. I have two reasons for urging that this amendment be adopted. One is that when local elections are fought, as long as they are fought on a political basis, the subsequent appointments carried out by such elected representatives, councillors and corporators, are not necessarily objective. They may very well be affected by Party politics and so I think this might induce corruption in the appointment of rate collectors.
On the idea of corruption in local politics there were two views advanced here last Wednesday, one by Senator L'Estrange who, so far as I can recall, said there was some corruption in local administration, and the other by Senators Hawkins and Tunney, who maintained stoutly that there was no corruption in the same circles. My own view is that anybody who maintains that there is no corruption in local politics is so naive as to be completely unfitted for public life or so corrupt as to be incapable of recognising corruption when he sees it. I charitably assume that the Senators who objected to the statement made by Senator L'Estrange belong to the former category. Nevertheless, I do not ask Senators to agree with either of those views in supporting the amendment. If you believe that there is no corruption in local politics and consequently that there is not likely to be any corruption in the appointment of rate collectors, you have a duty to see that no possible seed of corruption can be introduced into such an athmosphere. On the other hand, if you believe there is some corruption in those circles I think you have a duty to see that no nothing which is likely to increase corruption is introduced. On these two grounds I ask the House to support this amendment. I may say before I sit down that the last amendment on the paper, amendment No. 51, will be merely consequential on this one.
I think we ought to let the system stand as it is unless we change the system altogether. I believe that the rate collectors are a very efficient body. I see figures published from time to time in the Press and I think that of any body of collectors in the world they are probably the best. We very seldom see anything in the nature of the taking of public funds or anything of that kind.
I believe, however, that the system of collecting rates is entirely wrong. Poundage generally is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 8d. or 9d. in the £ and rate collecting is a part-time job. I believe that most of the collectors can do the work in one or two months in each year. The peculiar thing about it for a part-time job is that they are compelled to retire at 65. What is happening in our county and I think in neighbouring counties is that the sons of the previous rate collectors are in many cases getting the job, and you have something like this: you have a rate collector retiring at about £700 or £800 or £1,000 or £1,200 a year and the position which he occupied divided into two and his son employed, living in the one house, at maybe £800 a year. So you might have £2,200 or £2,300 a year for the part-time job. I believe that if the rates were collected the same as the Land Commission annuities you could save an enormous amount of money. You hear of people shedding hypocritical tears about the rates. Yet it must be the case in nearly every county that the poundage plus the cost of superannuation is somewhere around 1/- in the £ on the rates. A penny produces £1,750 in our two-thirds of a county. Multiply that by 12 and it is a considerable amount of money. I have discussed this matter several times with people who knew something about accountancy and office management and the cost of collection. One of them said to me that if he were to get £5,000 a year for collecting the rates in South Tipperary, which were over £20,000, he would make a substantial profit and have a wonderful position. There I believe is the avenue in which we could have a fruitful saving of expenditure. There are in our county half as many Land Commission receivable orders to be levied twice yearly as there are rate demands and it costs nothing to have them collected. I believe the same thing could be done. Further, our county councils pay considerable amounts in interest to the banks at around about 4½ or 5 per cent. for the money necessary to carry on the services until the rates are collected.
On a point of order. We are not discussing rate collection now. We are only discussing rate collectors.
I have very nearly finished.
Even if the Senator is finishing if he is not in order he is not in order.
I have nearly finished. I believe that if some discount had been given you would get so much money in for the councils early in the year that you would save them the interest as well.
In conclusion I think we ought to leave the present system as it is. There was a mention made of the suggestion that because of the fact that elections are decided politically it might cause some difficulty. I think that having elections political ought to, if anything, do away with corruption, because if a person is obliged to vote for a member of their Party certainly even if they were corrupt they could not expect to be paid for voting for a member of their Party. For that reason I do not believe that Senator McHugh's amendment would remove the reason for corruption.
One of the things doing most damage to this country in general is that the man best equipped for the job sometimes does not get the job for various reasons. I think that Senator McHugh's amendment is a step in the right direction. I think it is most likely that the city manager would appoint the rate collector because he is the best man for the job.
The city manager does not come into the thing. According to the amendment the Local Appointments Commission does.
The same argument then would apply. I have more confidence in them than I would have in a politically appointed local authority.
I do not see why such exception should be taken to the fact that people on local authorities are politically minded and that for that reason a rate collector appointed by them could not be right. Nothing can be said now against local authorities in comparison with the old days. If the person is appointed now with the help of any political Party it is an Irish political Party anyway. We must give consideration to that fact. There were times long ago when the only chance you had of getting a position of any value was if you were something like a Castle hack. Thanks be to God that day is gone now. During recent years most of the people who have been appointed to these jobs have been practical men—men who know the local people and their needs, not men like my learned friend here; the only letters they had were the letters they got when they were being christened. That type of candidate was much more suitable to the needs of the people of rural Ireland than the men with all the letters. I can well understand the objection to putting a man into a job which he was not capable of doing.
Before the county management system came into being at all you had qualifying examinations for local appointments. Under these examinations you might get 50 qualifying and the local authority could not appoint the whole 50. Sometimes men who were not at the top of the list were appointed. To my mind it is always better to get the man with the practical knowledge of local conditions than the person who is fresh from school and who might have the better education. Most local authorities in this country have no need to look back with shame on appointments they have made. I am sorry that the Senator who said earlier that the man with the most money got the job is not here at the moment because I could tell him that that was not the case; I saw men with no money getting jobs. They are there yet and they are doing their jobs well and honestly. Surely nobody can say that there was corruption in such an appointment. If this system of appointment is to be wiped out what about the system of electing the Seanad? Nobody suggests that that system is corrupt. Let us put our own house in order first. We are a body of just men elected by a body of just people.
I was most anxious to see how many Senators from rural Ireland would speak in favour of this amendment because the law does not apply to Dublin where the city manager appoints the rate collectors. The same applies to rural councils and town commissioners. Senator Burke spoke on the amendment but not in favour of it. He spoke against the system of rate collection which is an entirely different thing. He did not address himself to the amendment at all. When this matter came before the Dáil I left it to a free vote of the House and a similar amendment to this was defeated by 77 votes to 18. As I said, it was a free vote of the House. Personally, if you want my own view, I am not in favour of the amendment. Rates are collected from the farmers of rural Ireland and if the collectors were appointed by the Local Appointments Commission they would find a very good university student appointed but nobody knows the economic life of the farmer better than the farmer himself or his son. The farmer's son knows that at a certain date in September his neighbour sells his stock and that he can hold out his hand and get his rates.
He knows when the wheat grower sends his wheat to the mill or to the drying plant. He knows exactly when to tap the farmer for his rates but if you send down a gentleman from the City of Dublin who may have much better qualifications than the farmer's son, he may know nothing of the economics of the farmer and he will have a greater impact on the economic programme of that farmer who, after all, is the backbone of the country's ratepayers. We may have exceptions, of course; there may have been alleged pressure and alleged corruption in a few places but I do not think there has been any serious charge of that kind made against the decent councillors of this country especially in the matter of appointment of rate collectors. In most counties the applicants are screened as to their capacity to fill the posts and then the council as a whole sort out the applicants to see who is the best qualified to come up to the standard set by the council.
I think this system of rate collector appointment is a very fair system. It is a system which Dáil Éireann, by the huge majority of 77 to 18 in a free vote of the House, supported. Only in one case in my discussions with the representatives of the local authorities did I find a local representative who suggested that this power should be taken from the local authority, but mind you I did find a number of requests to give these powers to rural councillors and town commissioners. One of the 12 points in the inter-Party programme was to give back to local authorities more power than they have got. Surely this amendment is not designed at giving back more power but at taking away from them the one and only personnel appointment they have got. I regret very much I cannot accept this amendment.
How does the Minister reconcile that view with his statement on the previous amendment to the effect that councils did not want power over staffs?
They do not want power over staff but they like to have control over the appointment of staff.
Yes, but this is going to give them a decided power over staff.
That power is there already.
I have the disadvantage of being a Dublin man. That seems to be a great disadvantage in this debate because we are told that Dublin people do not understand the country. I also have the disadvantage of having a few university degrees and that seems to be something about which nobody is enthusiastic at the moment. First and foremost I must say that I did not like the tone in which the amendment was proposed. I do not regard politics as being essentially corrupt.
There was no suggestion that politics were essentially corrupt.
And I am free to say that they are not essentially corrupt.
Or incidentally corrupt. I cannot agree with Senator Stanford's suggestion that our reputation in this country is suffering from the fact that the best qualified person is not always appointed.
In point of fact I said it was one of the things that was doing the country most harm and I stand over that.
That is what I am saying.
I did not say what Senator Hayes suggested a few moments ago.
What I suggested was that Senator Stanford had said that harm was being done to us in our reputation by the fact that the best qualified person was not appointed. I should like to say that there are very few countries, even Great Britain, where more elaborate precautions are taken in this regard. That is the truth; Dublin Corporation was the first body to establish a competitive examination for clerkships. I might as well add that they were not followed by the Rathmines Urban Council. This is not ancient history. I know it to be the fact myself. They were not followed, and the Rathmines Urban Council was the most jobbing body in the country, with a majority with which, I think, Senator Stanford would have been in considerable sympathy. We took elaborate precautions from the very beginning with regard to the Civil Service, and with regard to local appointments from 1926 to ensure that the best qualified people were and are appointed. So much for that.
I do not think that because politicians have power to make appointments that means that appointments will necessarily be made on a corrupt basis. I think the Minister is exaggerating, too, when he considers the Local Appointments Commissioners would sit here in Dublin and send a nice, clean, young fellow from Dublin with a university degree to collect the rates in West Donegal. I do not think they would be so foolish as to do that. At the same time, I agree that people with local knowledge should be appointed, if possible, and I think the procedure adopted in the Dublin Corporation and in urban councils is the one which should be adopted.
For many years the job of rate collector was regarded as a plum. As Senator Hartney has said, in some cases it was a reward for national service and in some cases it was the reward for belonging to a particular family, and it carried very high remuneration. A poundage system was adopted and the net remuneration was extremely high. I think the tendency nowadays is to pay a salary. That is the case certainly in the Dublin Corporation, which, as I say, deserves great credit for the fact that for more than 50 years it has recruited its staff by competitive examination—a very excellent staff indeed. They have a system now whereby, out of that very excellent staff, the manager appoints a rate collector. I do not know whether there is any objection to the same thing being done by other local authorities. There must be a considerable number of people working for local authorities who have local experience, who are either natives of the county or have learned a great deal about the affairs of the county who could be appointed as rate collectors. I think that system would certainly be an improvement on the present system, which is undoubtedly one of canvassing the members of the local body. It seems to me that if the other system were adopted rather than the system contemplated in the amendment a considerable improvement would be achieved.
I realise, of course, that people who have got a certain power are not anxious to relinquish any of it, but I think if we had a system whereby rate collectors were recruited, by promotion, from certain ranks of the local authority staffs, that would work much better. I suggest that is how it should be done. In that way, one would get a person of experience, a person with local knowledge, and one would at the same time provide a promotion outlet for people who have given good service to local authorities. I realise that that appointment would have to be made by the county manager; and, while I am aware that every county manager is after all a human being and subject to human imperfections, as are the members of the Local Appointments Commission, and others, that would be an improvement on the present system and I think it would be a better system than that contemplated in the amendment. With regard to Senator Burke's suggestion, I think that opens up a different subject altogether.
I would like to make one comment on the remarks of both Senator Hayes and Senator Hartney. They seem to have one idea in common and that is that in proposing my amendment I was pointing the university finger of scorn at the humble county councillor. I do not think anyone could have taken that from my remarks. I am not concerned about modes here; I am concerned with principle. There should be only one test in appointing local officials such as rate collectors, and that is the test of merit. After all, these jobs are worth a considerable sum. I would say that, not alone in local councils but also in university appointments, Party political considerations sometimes play a considerable part in the appointment of inferior people to quite important posts. Therefore, this is not a case of the university pointing the finger of scorn at the local county council. I think a certain amount of corruption is inevitable in public life, but I think most of us here in the Seanad hope to do something to remedy that corruption, be it great or small. I intend to press this amendment. I am tired of hearing amendments withdrawn after a very feeble struggle. I believe in this amendment and, therefore, I intend to press it.
Amendment put and declared negatived.
I should like a division.
How many Senators are calling for a division?
Will they please rise in their places?
Dr. McHugh, Dr. Sheehy Skeffington, Professor Stanford and Mr. Murphy rose.
The Senators will be recorded as dissenting. That disposes then of amendments Nos. 11 and 51.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In sub-section (6), to delete all words after "then" in line 39 to the end of the sub-section and substitute the following: "a vacancy shall have been created and a separate manager shall be appointed to perform the functions of the council that has not appointed such person as manager".
It has been represented to me by people in Waterford, Kilkenny and Tipperary where the system of having a joint manager and an assistant joint manager prevails that this amendment is essential. In Kilkenny and Waterford you have a joint manager and in Tipperary you have a joint manager and joint assistant manager. There are also joint managers in Laois-Offaly, Sligo-Leitrim, Longford-West-meath, etc. I understand that the principle in this Bill is that where, for instance, there is a joint manager for Waterford-Kilkenny and the people of Kilkenny wish to have him as manager and the people of Waterford do not wish to have him he, nevertheless, remains the joint manager. In relation to Tipperary, if the people of South Tipperary or the people of North Tipperary wish to retain a certain manager it is obligatory on either area to retain him, even though they may not want him.
If that is not the position, I would like to have a definite assurance to that effect from the Minister. Reading the section, it appears to me that what I have stated is the case. It is for that reason I put down this amendment.
I think the Senator is under a complete misapprehension about the entire matter. This Bill does not deal with degrouping. The Senator may recollect that on the Second Reading I pointed out that prior to this the county manager was always looked upon as the creature of the Minister; in other words, the Local Appointments Commissioners recommended a name to the Minister and the Minister appointed that particular individual. I propose under this Bill to change the law. The Local Appointments Commissioners will now recommend the name to the local authority and it is the local authority which will make the appointment.
Supposing Waterford-Kilkenny do not wish to be degrouped and supposing their county manager dies and the Local Appointments Commissioners send forward a name, it is the local authorities which will make the appointment; the Local Appointments Commissioners will merely recommend the individual. Now, these two local authorities may not meet on the same day at all. If the first county council meets on a Monday and appoints John Brown as the new manager and if the second county council does not meet on the same Monday, John Brown becomes manager for the two counties until such time as the second county council meets. It is all quite simple and it naturally follows from the section, whereby local authorities, instead of the Minister, will appoint their own county manager. It does not refer to degrouping, which Senator Burke has in mind.
You are not providing for any degrouping in this Bill?
Of course I am. The position with regard to degrouping is that, if two county councils wish to degroup, they automatically degroup and the existing county manager has the option of going to whichever county he wishes.
Has one council the option of degrouping?
No. It is not under this section. We shall come to that section. If two county councils wish to degroup, the existing county manager has the option of staying in whichever county he wishes, and the Local Appointments Commission will recommend a name to the other county council, but I am not dealing with that case. I am dealing with the position in which two local authorities will have the appointment of the same manager.
I have to withdraw the amendment if the Minister tells me that it is the wrong section. I expect that Section 14 is the section under which I should deal with it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 16 might be taken together and Senator Kissane might also deal with amendments Nos. 37 to 48.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In sub-section (10), paragraph (a), to delete all words after "vacant" in line 23 to the end of the paragraph and substitute "the county secretary shall be acting county manager until the next meeting of the local authority concerned when the said local authority shall, subject to the sanction of the Minister, appoint a person to be the manager temporarily until a permanent appointment to the office is made, but such temporary appointment may be terminated by the said local authority at any time."
Perhaps I should move this amendment first and then proceed to deal with amendment No. 14?
Amendments Nos. 37 to 48 cover the same principle.
This amendment arises out of the discussion we had on the Second Reading of the Bill, when we all understood that the avowed object of the Bill was to restore as much power and authority to the local authorities as possible. I must confess that I could not for the life of me understand why the appointment of a temporary manager could not be left in the hands of a local authority. The Minister intervened and said that, if my suggestion were accepted, it would involve additional expenditure for the local authority, that they would be compelled to convene a special meeting for the purpose of appointing a temporary county manager. Since then, I have given the matter a little thought and I do not see why a special meeting would be necessary at all, because the county secretary could be invested with the authority for the time being. In other words, he would be an acting temporary county manager until such time as the council would meet on the next occasion.
I do not see anything wrong with that, and I ask the Minister and the Seanad to consider it, because, as I said, this is one of the functions which I think should be exercised by the local authority. If there are any functions to be exercised by a local authority, we should give them the power to do so. The Minister mentioned that one of the 12 points in the Coalition programme was to restore as much power and authority to the local bodies as possible. This is an instance in which the Minister can make good his promise and there will be a few more coming after this.
If there are a few more coming after this, I hope the Senator has given more thought to them than he has given to this. The Senator opened up by referring to the word "manager", but if the Senator will refer to the definition section, he will see that the word "manager" refers to the city manager as well as county manager. I am unaware that we have the secretary of a county council in the City of Dublin.
We will come to that later.
I am dealing with the amendment as it stands. I am unaware that any corporation in Ireland has a county secretary, so that I think the amendment goes out on that point.
Proceed to the following sub-section.
Secondly, the Senator suggested that a local authority should have the appointment of the county manager. What local authority?
What about urban councils and town commissioners? Are these not local authorities and why should they not have a say in it as well as the county council? They are all local authorities. A county manager may be county manager for ten different local authorities. Which of them is going to have the say in it? The Senator does not tell us in the amendment.
There is no mention of it in the amendment. I think that town commissioners should have as good a say in the appointment of the manager as the county council.
Do you tell me that the urban council of Drogheda or Dundalk should not have as much say as the county council in the appointment of the manager in Louth?
Would any of the representatives of these urban towns say so?
Of course—what about Ardee?
A lot of these town commissioners were never abolished.
I heard Senator Burke making a protest because we threatened to de-frock him, to take the robes off him on one occasion, but here you are going to hand over to the county council the appointment of their county manager who is county manager for the town commissioners. I think it is ridiculous.
In sub-paragraphs (b) and (c), we have "the Corporation of Dublin and the council of the county of Dublin". If the appointment of a temporary manager is going to be made between them and if there is a conflict of opinion as to where he should come from, whether from the county council or the corporation, who is going to resolve it?
What about the grouped counties?
I am coming to that, too. That is in the next sub-paragraph. Taking the grouped counties, I want to put this to the Minister: if there is a conflict between two counties as to who the man is to be, what will the position be?
There is no mention at all of it in your amendment.
As a matter of fact, I have an amendment down covering that, too—amendment No. 15, which seeks to insert in sub-section (10), paragraph (b), line 31, before "under" the words "by the Minister". The same applies to the next following amendment. To come back to the original point, I think the primary authority in any county is the county council.
Dublin Corporation would not agree with you on that.
The Dublin Corporation is catered for in the next sub-paragraph.
What about Cork, Limerick and Waterford?
These are all grouped. I am referring to one county.
They are not grouped at all. Cork is not grouped, neither is Limerick.
Cork is not mentioned here.
No, that is why I ask what you are going to do in that case?
You have a city manager in Cork.
You have not. He is city and county manager. Oh no, I beg your pardon. Dublin is.
Dublin has a city and county manager. I would ask the Minister to consider this amendment.
What are you going to do in Cork?
That is another day's work.
Supposing the city manager died, who is going to succeed him? You have no county secretary.
If there is to be a conflict of opinion as to who should be the acting manager for Cork Corporation and Cork County Council, who is going to resolve that?
They are not grouped at all, they are separate.
He says, even if they are not grouped, who is going to decide, if he passes out?
As the law stands at the moment, the successor will be appointed by the Minister, temporarily. There is no provision otherwise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In sub-section (10), paragraph (a), line 23, to delete "Minister" and substitute "local authority".
I am prepared to acknowledge that this amendment is not complete. If I were quite sure the Minister were going to accept it, I would have made it more explicit. "Local authority" is defined in the Bill as the corporation of a county borough, the council of a county or an elective body. In using the words "local authority" here, I am confining myself to the first two of those. If we were anxious to give the maximum amount of power to local authorities, we could easily arrange that when a vacancy occurs it could be filled by the secretary of a county council or by the equivalent person in a city corporation, or it could be filled temporarily by a person nominated by the chairman of either body, pending the next meeting of the appropriate body. That meeting must take place in less than a month. The temporary appointment could be made until such time as it would be possible for the Appointments Commission to act.
You would have a nice bit of canvassing in the meantime.
I do not know. I do not see why the same precedent could not be followed as in the case of a vacancy for a C.A.O., where the procedure I have outlined is adopted. In some other Bill we had the idea of a panel system and I wonder whether the Appointments Commission could have a panel of qualified candidates to fill those positions of manager immediately.
That would be the Local Government Bill.
Yes, it was under that Bill. That might solve it.
It would leave the power in the hands of the Local Appointments Commission plus the local authority.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I want to make it clear that amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 have been discussed together; and amendments Nos. 37 to 48, since they deal with the appointment of deputy managers, are also being debated at this point, as the principle is the same. I understand that that has been agreed to.
In connection with amendments Nos. 15 and 16, I have yet to ascertain from the Minister, if there is a conflict of opinion between two grouped counties as to who the person to be appointed would be, how that is to be resolved?
Does the Senator mean temporarily?
Temporarily, considering Section 5. If there is a conflict of opinion between two grouped counties, between Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council, as to who the temporary manager should be, who is going to resolve the difference?
Sub-section (10) of Section 5 explains all that in detail. It is given there in paragraph (b). The Minister makes the appointment.
Would it not be just as well to have the Minister there altogether as well?
If the Senator reads the section, he will find that is there all the time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.
I move amendment No. 17:—
To add a new sub-section as follows:—
"(11) The Minister may at the request of a borough council or urban district council of an urban area having a population of not less than 5,000 authorise the town clerk of the said council to perform the functions usually performed by the county manager."
I put down this amendment because I believe that when the County Management Act of 1940 was passed there was never any reason why the powers should have been taken from our corporate boroughs and our large urban areas. The reason I put in a minimum of 5,000 is that many of the small urban areas have so many functions performed for them by the county manager and his staff that it may not be practicable to allow them to carry on in quite as autonomous a position as the larger areas. Bodies in places like Drogheda, Wexford, Kilkenny, Sligo, Clonmel, Tralee and Dundalk, and places of that size and importance, were never abolished as many of the county councils were abolished for one reason or another. They were public bodies as fine as exist anywhere in the whole world. I could never understand why their powers were taken from them when the County Management Act was being drafted. No explanation was ever given to me and I never saw any explanation in the Press regarding it, saying why the power was taken from them.
The amendment will not give it back to them.
Be that as it may. The Minister might suggest a more suitable amendment. I know the councillors of many of these places I have named. They have had a tradition of service. In regard to the rates, there were suggestions here for estimates committees. They have these as voluntary committees in many of the urban and corporation areas. Even under the County Management Act, their work has been done and they have carried out their business in such a responsible way that I believe that the power which has been taken from them should be given back to them again. I think there is no reason why it should be withheld.
I think the State should be—in this respect, anyhow—like the parent, and if they are worthy of responsibility they should get all the responsibility they are worthy of. If, as the Minister says, this amendment is not sufficient to give them back those powers which they had heretofore, perhaps the Minister and his parliamentary draftsman would introduce an amendment that would return to these corporate bodies in large urban areas the powers they exercised in such a completely responsible way that they gave an example of citizenship that this country or any other country could be proud of.
I find one thing wrong with this amendment and I cannot understand why Senator Burke missed it in drafting the amendment because it would make a good deal of sense to many people if two words which are in it could be deleted and one word substituted. The operative words are "town clerk" and I cannot understand why Senator Burke in drafting that amendment used the words "town clerk" instead of the word "mayor". If he used "mayor" it would make sense to many people, and I am sure it would make sense to the Minister, too.
I really cannot understand what Senator Burke is getting at. No powers were ever taken from the borough councils under the Act of 1940 except executive functions and these were vested in the managers. What the Senator is now asking me to do is to vest them in the town clerk in corporations and borough councils. He wants me to create another city manager or town manager. I am sure if we give further powers to town clerks they will want bigger salaries and one could not blame them.
A manager might be very good.
One minute we are asked to get rid of as many managers as we can and here now we are asked that every town with a population of 5,000 should have its own town manager.
I do not care what you call him. Whether you call him "bainisteoir" or not, you will have to pay him if you give him these functions. Most of these town clerks come up from very junior offices and would be taking on an awful lot of responsibility in health functions and administrative functions which are very serious matters. If most of these town clerks went before the Local Appointments Commissioners for such an appointment, they would not qualify under any circumstances, but the Senator wants us to make them city managers, town managers or urban managers or whatever you wish to call them straight away. There is a considerable amount of expenditure in towns with a population of 5,000 and the Senator wants all executive functions handed over to the town clerk and to have him put in charge of it all. I do not think the Deputy has given that matter sufficient thought. At the moment, borough councils and district councils have to pay the amount of the manager's expenses only in proportion to the valuation. They would have a lot more to pay if they had a town clerk acting as town manager. It is all very fine saying that they want the return of their own robes and their own mayor and want a city manager for themselves, but I wonder would the ratepayers in any town in Ireland stand for that? I do not suppose they would. I am convinced they would not stand for it at all; it is bound to add additional expense, which must come out of the rates. I think if the Senator remembers that he will not press this amendment.
I do not know any of these areas I have spoken of, corporate boroughs or urban councils, that look after the health function. That is a county-at-large function, and hospitals, mental hospitals and such functions are looked after by the county. I am a member of a corporate borough since 1942. I had ten years' experience in that borough before the County Management Act came in, and I can assure the House and the Minister that that borough was better administered before we got the County Management Act, under the official who carried out the executive functions as town clerk. I should hate to think that we had to build him up with the undemocratic name of a county manager. These functions were better carried out then.
Recently I approached a man to stand for the local authority. This man is a man of outstanding capacity and ability—I heard one of our ablest county council officials saying at one time that he was so good at figures that he would have been an asset to our Department of Finance. I asked this man to stand and he replied: "How could people stand when they are not allowed to perform functions to a greater extent than is possible now?" He said he had no interest in public affairs since the Management Act.
This amendment will not give him much further interest.
A town clerk in a city like Kilkenny has to go and seek the manager's permission for all sorts of little things about which previously he consulted the council and the council trusted him.
Does the Senator remember the delegation section in the Bill? The delegation section would cover that.
I suppose that is so, but he does not delegate all these powers.
He could delegate the whole lot if he wishes to.
The point I want to make is that there was never any reason to take these powers away. I have heard another colleague in the corporation who had eight or ten years' experience of freedom saying that he believed that the powers were taken away from the town clerks and that it was a mistake to do so.
The town clerks never had any of these powers.
When I went on the corporation in 1932, from that until 1942, the town clerk was our official; we struck our own rates and we paid the county council for the services which they did for us. He looked after the day to day affairs of staff and everything of that nature.
He had no executive function.
Perhaps not as defined in an Act of Parliament, but the system was freer and far better for the lives of these urban areas and corporate boroughs than the present system. Another thing about it—it was more efficient and cost us less and gave us a better and a more responsible type of public representative.
I take such a strong line on this because I believe sincerely that towns like Kilkenny and Wexford do not need to be supervised by managers at all. Not a single borough council was ever abolished and, mark you, a large number of county councils were abolished. The reasons may have been good or bad, but they were abolished and these urban councils were not abolished and did their jobs very well. A number of members here have been members of these bodies from time to time and I would like them to give their opinions. If the amendment does not deal with it in a proper way then the Minister could always suggest a way of letting the town clerk carry on some of these functions.
We had a situation in Cork such as that to which Senator Burke referred. We had a city manager and a town clerk. After a while, the city manager decided to absorb both and he is now city manager and town clerk. I am inclined to agree with Senator Burke that a city manager and town clerk are very desirable. If the city manager is ill or on holidays I do not know of anybody more capable of taking over his position than the town clerk who is in touch with him every day of the week. When that change occurred in Cork a good many responsible citizens felt it was not a progressive step to do away with the position of town clerk. The city manager was one and the town clerk was another and then the city manager said: "I will be both". I think Senator Burke wants to restore the town clerk where the city or county manager is——
This is a Bill which is giving back extended powers to county councils, city councils, and so forth. I have had over 20 years' experience on public bodies. I believe it is the experience of practically all the people I have been associated with on these public bodies such as corporate bodies that something should be done to give them back the powers. Would the Minister have the situation examined dispassionately? I will not press this amendment on this Bill, as such, but I presume we will have amending legislation and I put it to the Minister that the matter should be examined for what it is worth. I think it is wrong, and I believe I ought to say it here, to take any more powers from these voluntary bodies than it is necessary to take from them.
We are adding to their powers, not taking from them.
The powers they had were taken from them in 1942. The present Minister did not do that but these powers should not have been taken from them. I am asking the Minister now to give most of the powers which were taken from them in 1942 back to them in future legislation. I think the Minister would do a good day's work in helping the people in public life in this country to grow up— particularly when they have shown that they could carry the responsibility which would be given to them. That is what prompted me to put down this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
In discussing the appointment of temporary managers, the Minister more or less indicated that he was sympathetic to the idea of the panel system when the filling of these appointments was being considered. I would ask the Minister to look into that matter before the Report Stage and see what can be done.
I think it is under the Local Government Bill that we would have to do that—and it is still possible to do it until that Bill is passed.
Then it does not require an amendment?
After spending quite a substantial amount of time discussing possible amendments to this section, does the Minister seriously consider a situation arising whereby a local authority will, in fact, invoke Section 6 of the 1926 Act—and, if any local authority should invoke that Act, will its invocation be sanctioned by the Minister? I should like the Minister, before this question is put to the House, to tell us whether or not it is his intention to allow local authorities to invoke Section 6 of the 1926 Act in so far as it concerns the appointment of a manager.
Is it not subject to the sanction of the Minister?
The appointment will be made by the county council now.
Subject to the sanction of the Minister. I may be wrong. I am not a lawyer and I do not know a lot about law.
Can the Senator visualise for one second the Local Appointments Commissioners forwarding a name to the county council and the county council accepting it and the Minister turning it down?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 18:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The manager shall vary the number of permanent offices under a local authority if requested to do so by a resolution of the local authority and subject to the sanction of such Minister as may be empowered to sanction the proposal.
My only point in putting down this amendment was to add somewhat to the power of the local authority. Sub-section (1) of this section provides that the manager shall not submit any proposal to vary the number of permanent offices under a local authority for the sanction of such Minister as may be empowered to sanction the proposal save with the consent by resolution of the local authority. That is a negative proposal. It means that the manager shall not do a certain thing unless he gets the consent of the local authority. The intention behind my amendment is that the local authority shall have the power to direct the manager to vary the number of permanent appointments. For instance, if the local authority considered it desirable to reduce the number of offices they would take the initiative and direct the manager to reduce the number of offices. It would give a little more scope and power to the local authority rather than have them merely consenting to action taken by the manager.
I can see the Senator's point of view. As I have said many times before, it would be cutting across the entire fundamental principles of county management that the local authority should have control over staff. Having accepted that, we have gone a little bit further and we have given them power to curb the manager's additional expenditure by way of increase of staff or increase in wages of staff.
One of the things in Section 4 which we exclude is staff and we would have completely divided control as between the local authority and the manager were the amendment accepted. The principal reason why Section 6 has been inserted is to curb the manager's power of expenditure and that is by increase of salary or wages or by increase of staff. I think it would be very bad and that it would cut across the fundamental principles of county management were we to give them power to initiate curtailment or addition to staff.
Does the Senator not really restrict the council by the fact that he says it would be subject to the sanction of the Minister? Many county councillors have complained to me about the adoption of the system by many of the managers of a number of staff officers and all this hierarchy of services which they have set up. I believe many county councillors might like to question that. If it were found, as Senator Cogan suggests, that there were too many offices, the manager, instead of adopting what the council says, would have to send it to the Minister and the Minister and the secretary and the officials of his Department would have an opportunity of examining the position. They would, in their own Department, have men trained in establishment—and that does not often happen on local authorities. I believe nobody is trained in establishment in these places. They could then investigate the position, send a report and say: "We believe the county council is overstaffed in the establishment side and that the manager should carry out the recommendations of the council in that respect." The Minister is right in trying to safeguard the county manager from day to day intereference by members of the council with his functions. You could quite imagine a county councillor saying: "What about so-and-so? He is not getting the treatment he should get." That is one thing against which we must guard and I do not believe any Senator wants that to happen. If we are overstaffed there ought to be some escape clause whereby the Minister and the officials would be able to investigate it and whereby we could examine the position ourselves——
If we believed, say, in South Tipperary, that we were over-staffed——
That could be dealt with administratively without the necessity of an amendment in the Act at all.
If the Minister gives the assurance that what the Senator wants to be done can be done, I think Senator Cogan ought to withdraw his amendment.
I am still waiting for that assurance. I do not think the Minister has given any assurance that that can be done. I think this is a very moderately-worded proposal. It is similar to that in Section 1, the only difference being that in Section 1 it is the manager who takes the initiative and reduces the staff, or varies it, if he thinks fit. It he has a proposal to increase the staff he cannot do it without the consent of the local authority.
In the sub-section which I wish to incorporate, the county council, having considered that there were, say, too many assistant engineers in the county, could ask the manager to reduce the number. The proposal would not be operative without the consent, as Senator Burke has pointed out, of the Minister. The consent of the Minister is required already in sub-section (1) so that I think the proposal is a reasonable one and if the Minister could see his way to accept it, or alternatively, to give the assurance that Senator Burke has asked for, I would not go further in the matter.
I can assure the Senator of that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 19:—
To delete sub-section (2).
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 may be taken together. If any question arises we can take separate decisions on amendments Nos. 19 and 20.
Amendment No. 21 is consequential on amendment No. 19 and amendment No. 20 is a different principle altogther. We have been discussing for some time now the effect of this Bill and the relationships between the managers and the county councils and I think it would be as well if for a few moments we were to consider the Bill from the aspect of another party, that is, the employees of the county councils and the corporations affected.
I was very much intrigued to read in a newspaper a few days ago an annual report of the Local Government Officials' Union and judging by what they said there, the ways of these people in dealing with the employers are very strange and round-about indeed. It seems to me that if sub-section (2) stays in the Bill and sub-section (3) is not amended, we would have the position that a trade union bringing forward a claim for employees of a county council or a corporation would have quite a few steps to take and negotiations to make. The first set of negotiations under this Bill which we have before us—and consider this very carefully—would be in the line of canvassing of individual members of the various county councils. The second would be the negotiations with the individual managers; and the third, judging from this newspaper report, would be with another body which I do not think has a negotiating licence, that is, the County Managers' Association. Finally, we come to the Minister and his advisers.
The Senator is not referring to the Industrial Relations Act which is being amended?
I shall deal with that in a moment. That is the position under this Bill. I think it is all wrong and any Senator who would consider the matter would agree that it will only make the position worse confounded. It seems to me that the proper procedure and the more sensible way of dealing with a salary claim of a group of employees would be that there should be some joint machinery. I believe there is joint machinery covering England and Wales, and the municipal authorities sit on some joint council with the representatives of the appropriate union. Local authorities are, of course, represented by their side, by the management or whatever they call it, on this joint council, so there is representation and they have responsibility in negotiating and deciding on the rates of pay of their employees.
The Minister, in the course of dealing with other amendments during the afternoon, made two points again and again. One of them was that a fundamental principle of city and county management was that the managers had sole responsibility for control of staff. I presume that with control we could link up arriving at the rates of remuneration. I do not know whether the Minister has the sole right; he does not seem to have because so far as I can see at the moment any salary scale has finally to be decided by the Minister but the manager does enter into it. It appears that the managers' association also enters into it, and now the various members of the local authorities would be brought into it at the bottom of the ladder.
Another of the points which were made strongly by the Minister was that the councillors all round the country did not want to interfere with staff. These were the words he used. This section of the Bill is bringing them in under the rates of pay for employees. The Minister asked what about the amendment to the Industrial Relations Act. There is one very fundamental principle in that Act and in the Labour Court, and that is that the latter was set up to deal with disputes between employers and employees where there was no other machinery for negotiation. The Labour Court, in accordance with the principles of the Act, does everything possible to encourage industries and services to have their own machinery of negotiation. I understand, judging again from this newspaper report, that the Irish Local Government Officials' Union are anxious to have their own machinery of negotiation and do not want to avail of the Labour Court. Let us be clear about that. That is a principle which was accepted by all Parties.
The Senator should bear in mind that, at the request of certain Parties, I took conciliation out of this Bill in the Dáil.
I am dealing with the Bill as it stands.
At the request of the Labour Deputies, I took it out of the Local Government Bill.
Yes, because the Labour Court is going to deal with certain employees. There is another group of employees, salaried officials, who do not want the Labour Court but an internal system of machinery for negotiation and quite rightly so. I think that we would all agree that they should accept their own responsibilities and that the local authorities, on the other hand, should accept their responsibilities and have an internal system of joint machinery for negotiation.
Before the Minister overwhelms me with a spate of words, I would like to draw the attention of Senators to what amendments Nos. 19 and 21 would accomplish. In amendment No. 19 I am proposing to delete sub-section (2) altogether. Immediately some Senators may ask: "Will that take from the county councillors any control of staff in regard to remuneration etc."? It does not, because part of sub-section (3) remains in. How it would work now, with the amendment which I am proposing, is that the manager would have the right to propose an alteration in the rates of pay to the Minister without first going to the local authority, but these new rates of pay cannot be applied unless they come back to the local authority for their approval.
Let us be clear on that: the local authority are still in on it but not to the extent that they are with the Bill unamended. As I say, with the Bill unamended, the first step in negotiation will be the canvassing of every individual county councillor as to the merits of a particular salary claim, because under sub-section (2), it says that the manager shall not submit any proposal to fix an increase or to reduce the rate of remuneration, etc. Therefore, quite obviously, the first thing would be to go to all their friends and canvass the merits of a particular application before going to the manager, and then try to get him to bring forward a proposal for the county council so that the county council can approve of it. It would then go to the Minister and his advisers. Under the amendments which I am suggesting the salary claim would be negotiated, and the manager could then submit his recommendation to the Minister, but, before any increase could be paid, it would still have to go back under sub-section (3), as I leave it to the county council for approval. Would Senators please look at these two amendments before the Minister turns on me and see that what I say is correct? I would ask them to consider the merits of amendments Nos. 19 and 21.
I have to disagree with my friend because I am of opinion that this was one of the good points in the Bill, in that it took away as much power as possible from the manager. That was the original intention and that is the intention still. What the amendments propose is to give power to the manager and take it away from the elected representatives. I feel that all employees, whether in the clerical grade or road workers, will get justice at the hands of the elected representatives. Therefore, I oppose bitterly the suggestion that the manager should have the right to reduce the salary of any employee. I feel very keenly on that. I have always advocated that the manager should have no such power. I do not stand for the idea that the manager should be able to increase salaries in certain directions without the consent of the local authority.
I am sorry to say that if this amendment goes to a division I will have to vote against it. I am one of those who joined in making representations to the Minister asking that he should give this power to the elected representatives, and I am sorry that a colleague of mine should propose an amendment to take away that power from them. The Senator has spoken about the Minister coming down on him. As far as I am concerned, I hope he will come down on him as heavily as he can because I am strongly of opinion that this section should remain intact.
I have said more than once that the Minister is not going far enough in taking away power from the manager. That power should be in the hands of the elected representatives. In view of the fact that county council elections are to be held in the very near future, elections which are going to cost the country and the ratepayers a good deal of money, is it not stupid for anyone to propose that we should leave all this power to the manager? I hope the Minister will not accept the Senator's amendments.
Is Senator Murphy satisfied with the spate or does he still want the flood?
I am very sorry that my colleague did not accept my invitation to read the amendments. I hope the Minister has done so.
It is not what I want that I put into the Bill, but rather what the representatives of the people in the local authorities want. The Senator now suggests that we should do the one thing which the Labour Party has fought against from the very beginning. The Labour Party told me that it is the one thing they dread, and the representatives of the people have also told me that. I consulted the local representatives on this matter. I discussed it with them, and the great majority of them approved of this provision being included in the Bill. I may say that 24 of them approved of it, the views of two were inconclusive, two local authorities offered no views, and in the case of two others the matter was not discussed. However, we had an overwhelming majority of the representatives of the people who wanted some say in the expenditure of their own money, be it increases or decreases. That being so, I would be the very last person to keep that say from them.
I am very sorry that my English is not very good.
We shall hear the Senator in Irish.
I thought I explained very carefully that it did not take the power away from the local authority. What the Minister has done in Section 16 is to hand a lot of negative powers to local authorities. I am only trying to put some order in it and leave them with power at the appropriate stage. I am sorry that the Minister, in replying to the amendment, did not take up my suggestion or make any comment on my suggestion for some sort of joint machinery of negotiation. I have to withdraw the amendment, but, again, might I whisper in his ear that it would really be a good thing for the Minister, the manager and the local authorities if there was some sort of internal negotiation.
It might be possible to do something under the Industrial Relations Bill.
It would save Senator Tunney a lot of trouble.
Amendment No. 19, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Walsh on Section 7, amendment No. 22.
On a point of order. Did we pass Section 6?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I understood that Section 6 was agreed to when the amendments had been withdrawn.
My impression was that the section was not put to the House. It is simply a formality.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Does the Senator desire to comment on Section 6?
No, Sir, but am I in order in suggesting that the section was not formally put to the House?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It was not formally put to the House. It was understood that when nobody made any comment it was accepted.
Section 6 put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In sub-section (1), line 55, before "by" to insert "at its first and at each annual meeting".
This amendment is to provide that at each annual meeting an estimates committee be appointed. There appears to be no such provision under this section. If an estimates committee is appointed by a local authority, there appears to be no provision whereby it can be re-established again in the case of the committee being revoked. I believe it to be desirable that each year at the annual meeting the estimates committee should be appointed. Sometimes during the course of the year a person is co-opted a member. He may be a very efficient, intelligent and very desirable person to be on an estimates committee. If the same estimates committee continues for the full five years of the council it might prevent people who would be very effective or who would prove themselves to be very effective after a year or two of service from being put on an estimates committee.
The members of an estimates committee gain a good deal of knowledge and information about the financial conditions of a council. In my opinion they acquire a lot of knowledge which would be of value to them afterwards. I also think they are put in a privileged position and are enabled to advocate, as a result of being on the estimates committee, more expenditure for their own particular immediate area than if they were not. Accordingly, I think that every member of a council should have that opportunity. If only one estimates committee is allowed to be formed under this section and if it cannot be re-established once it is revoked then those people who might prove themselves very worthy members will be disqualified.
For instance, some members of the estimates committee may not attend very often. They may not be interested in financial matters. If they retire, then it is only a member from their particular electoral area who could apparently be appointed while there may be members from other electoral areas who would be much more suitable and efficient.
This section appears to have given people a considerable amount of worry and trouble. First of all, when I suggested an estimates committee and made it obligatory on councils to appoint them, people were up in arms. They said it should not be done. We are making it permissive. We are now told about the advantages of it and what a wonderful thing it is to have one— so wonderful, in fact, that we want to have one appointed every year. The appointment is permissive. Let it be permissive. There is no point in giving a local authority permissive power to appoint a committee and then requesting them to appoint one every year.
That is a matter for the council.
Of course. They can appoint a committee as often as they want. I am giving them the option as to whether they should or not. They have the option. I do not see why I should hold the gun to the head of the councils and say it must appoint a committee every year. You must give the committee a chance. If the committee feel they are doing very well they should leave them and if they see they are not doing the work they should change them.
It is permissive under the section. It is not suggested in the amendment that they must be appointed every year. As the section reads at the moment once a committee is revoked it cannot then be re-established. That is my opinion.
Many other committees of a council, under standing orders, must be appointed each year at the annual meeting.
They are not permissive committees. They are obligatory.
They are not obligatory committees. The General Purposes Committee of the Donegal County Council is not an obligatory committee. It does very effective work just the same as committees in many other county councils throughout the country do effective work. If it was discovered that some members of the committee were not effective somebody else was appointed in their stead the following year.
According to my reading of the section, once a committee has been established no other committee can take its place.
As the section stands, it strikes me that it is obligatory on a local authority to appoint an estimates committee. It first says the local authority "shall" and sub-section (2) says the local authority "may". If line 1 reads: "The local authority may", and if in line 2 it was: "The local authority may" it would be different, but the effect is different when you have "shall" in the first case and "may" in the second.
The Senator has the wrong copy.
The order is the other way round.
It is a grand thing to be wrong sometimes only.
The Senator's leader is never wrong.
For the benefit of those people correcting me over there, I say this is really a Donegal argument since you have the proposer of the amendment a Donegal man and the Minister a Donegal man and both of them lawyers. For your benefit, may I tell the House that in Donegal the local authority is sub-divided? They have a housing committee, an estimates committee and a general purposes committee with the result that it appears to me that the county council just exists. The only thing that can be said is that it works in practice, and as far as I know it works well. That is my observation, but in many counties, councils do not adopt that system.
The amendment would not do much to help that.
That is the reason perhaps why they are so much behind time.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment withdrawn?
If the Minister assures me——
I give you that assurance.
I hate intervening between two Donegal men but I would ask the Minister to have a look at this before the Report Stage.
I will. If there is any doubt whatsoever we will have it clarified.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 23:—
To delete sub-section (3) and substitute the following:—
(3) An estimates committee of a local authority, other than the council of a county, shall consist of so many of the members of the local authority as the local authority, immediately before electing the committee, by resolution decide, but shall not be less than half or more than three-quarters of the membership of such local authority. No committee shall have less than five members.
This amendment covers local authorities other than county councils, and the real reason I put down that is that I think that less than five members on a finance committee would be insufficient because it may happen that one or two would be unable to turn up and most of our urban councils have a membership of nine and the fraction is excluded, and therefore the finance committee would consist of four members. I discussed it with a number of people, in fact with some legal gentlemen who had considerable experience in this matter, and for that reason I put down five. I believe it is a more practical number than the number that appears in the Bill. There will be restriction to four in many cases.
May I take the two amendments together—23 and 24—because they are dealing with the same thing? Amendment No. 24 deals with the county councils. I think that the insistence on the appointing of members from each county council electoral area would be bad because they may not have the talent or the wish from each electoral area to act on that committee. You may have a big county council electoral area electing seven and that may be restricted to two. You may have a small county council electoral area electing four to the council and they are compelled, if you like, to have two.
I think there is also a tendency in nominating people from county council electoral areas to develop a sort of log-rolling. "We will put on your two men if you support our two and we will agree not to put on the other two." If you have a number it is better. There is a tendency, in my experience anyhow of county council affairs, to put on the best and most interested men on a committee of that sort.
I have also suggested that the committee shall not consist of less than nine members. County councils are big areas and many members have to travel a distance. You ought to have a minimum of nine because their effective membership might often come down to five or six and the amendment would neither make a committee that is too big nor a committee that is too small. It would give you, I believe, in the case of county councils better opportunities of selecting talent and the people who had the wish to serve on those committees. I commend my proposal to the Minister and ask him if he would accede to my wishes in this respect.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I understand that it is the wish of the House to take amendments Nos. 24 and 25 together with amendment No. 23. In that case it would seem advisable that amendment No. 26 be taken also since the amendment would be consequential on amendment No. 25. Is that agreeable?
Might I ask if there is any prospect of concluding this particular stage to-night? I understand that it has been ruled that amendments Nos. 37 to 48 have already been discussed on Section 5 and there is to be no further discussion on them. The amendments we have to deal with, therefore, are from 24 to 36.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I take it that amendment No. 51 has been decided.
That is correct. Is there any chance that, if we went on to 10.30, we could conclude these amendments? Would Senator Walsh think that we ought to try?
I think we ought to try. Perhaps the Minister, if we were not finished, could complete the points on the Report Stage.
I would not like that. If we could, we ought to finish it.
I take it that the Minister will take the Report Stage on Wednesday next.
The only thing I should like to say is that I would like to be present out of respect to the House but I am in the middle of my Estimates in the Dáil. However, if it were ordered to have the Report Stage on Wednesday, I would certainly make it my business to be present though it might not be possible for me to be present all the time. Unfortunately the Parliamentary Secretary is laid up. If it is ordered for Wednesday, I will make it my business to be here even if I have to interrupt the Estimates.
I should have added that Senator Ruane will not be present to move amendment No. 49 and amendment No. 50 and he will move them on the Report Stage. So with the agreement of the House would I be right to move that we should sit until 10.30?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The House will sit to 10.30.
Getting back to my amendments, with regard to amendments Nos. 25 and 26 as the section stands at the moment, is it mandatory that two representatives should be from each electoral area on the estimates committee? As the Minister is aware there are some areas of the country which elect four members, others which elect six and some, I understand, which actually elect eight. It would therefore, in many cases, be very disproportionate and unfair to those bigger areas that the small areas should have the same representation on that particular committee. It would appear to me to be better to elect one from each electoral area and that the remaining members of the estimates committee should be selected from the council generally, because one area may have three or even four representatives who would have much more practical experience and be more conversant with and capable of, dealing with financial matters than two from another area.
In the old 1950 Bill it was provided that all the members of the executive committee and the health committee were selected on the system of proportional representation. The words were:—
"The election of an executive committee shall be conducted on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote."
It seems to me that if each area must elect or select two members, it means that the main party in that particular county would possibly have the majority on that committee to the exclusion of the smaller groups. It could be possible that if one big Party had control over a local authority they might conceivably elect only their own members to the exclusion of all other members of the council. That has happened already, as the Minister possibly is aware, in certain counties in connection with other sub-committees of local authorities.
I think, therefore, it would be more practical and more meritorious if each local authority had the power of selecting its estimates committee on a system of proportional representation, provided it was ensured that each area had one representative, because I feel from experience as a member of an estimates committee that those members will have a lot of privileges— that they might be inclined to pass particular works which would be of benefit to their own area, such as the provision of extra lights——
The estimates committee. The Bill itself even encourages the members to prepare the estimates and that in itself would give them a tremendous advantage. Those people would know the whole position and know what works to select, to the exclusion of other works which might be desirable. The members of the local authority might not be familiar with what was going on because I take it the estimate body would sit in committee and that the Press would not be present. I think the Minister should accept this amendment and allow all Parties to be represented on the estimates committee. In that way I think we would get a better estimates committee than is provided for in the Bill as it stands.
I am most anxious to see that justice will be done. Take my own county. I know what would happen there. We live in the west of the county—in the poor Gaeltacht area, the Irish speaking district. The representatives in the council of the better class areas, of the bigger ratepayers, would form themselves into a clique irrespective of their Party politics and would become the estimates committee. I want to ensure that the poorer districts like the Glenties district which Senator Walsh represents are going to have equal representation with the richer electoral areas, irrespective of their contribution to the rates. It was for that reason, after very careful thought, that I decided that this was the most equitable manner to deal with the matter— to give each area two representatives on the committee. I am trying to ensure that the poorer section of a county would have equal representation on the committee. I know for a fact that we would never get it if it were left to the free wish of the people who consider themselves the main contributors to the purse. Otherwise they would have the monopoly on such a committee. That is the reason why I think this is the most equitable way.
That does not apply to us.
Maybe it does not because you have all rich land in your part of the country. With regard to the point raised earlier by Senator Burke about the possibility of the estimates committee being too small and that members might not attend——
You would have only three members from an urban council of nine.
An urban council with nine members would not be a very important one.
The Senator must be talking of town commissioners.
All of the corporations in this country with the exception of the four county boroughs have 12 members. That means that they may have only four members on the estimates committee. I think that is too small because if one is absent, there are only three present. Most of the urban councils have but nine members and are entitled to have only three members on the estimates committee. They include places like Thurles and Clonmel. I think such a committee would be ineffective and I say this with full responsibility, having had 20 years' experience of local administration. I say that a committee of three in a place like Clonmel would be ineffective.
Towns such as these do not lightly elect the members of their councils. They choose men who are going to look after affairs in a proper manner. I am surprised that Senator Burke said that three representatives from an urban council such as that of Clonmel might not attend an arranged meeting. Surely two of them would attend if the third could not turn up. I went into this very carefully with all the town commissioners and with the urban councils, as Senator Burke knows.
Only with the county council in our case.
I thought I had representatives of the urban council as well.
There is no use in having a big, unwieldy committee. I think that an urban council of nine members should have a committee of only three and that that would be quite reasonable. Once you go beyond the three members it is not a sub-committee any longer. You might as well put the whole nine members on it. Even at meetings of the urban council you will not find all of the nine members present; sometimes you might have only six.
How does the Senator spell "gas"?
We have a municipal gas works and half of the council members are members of that committee. In the past, when the urban councils were larger, the membership of the committee comprised about half of the membership of the council. In the case of an estimates committee, I think that a membership of three or four in an important urban area would be completely and entirely inadequate.
I should like to point out that the decisions of the estimates committee are not binding on the council as a whole.
The Minister's point that if this amendment were passed it might mean that the poorer areas would not have representation does not carry very much weight because he knows that in County Donegal the poorer districts have been represented on such committees.
The average ratepayer in a county is not a wealthy man and, if the average ratepayer is not allowed to be represented on this committee, who should be represented on it? I do not think the Minister should take it upon himself to decide this matter for the local authority. If the local authority are not allowed to make up their own minds as to the best representatives on such a committee democracy as such, in so far as it relates to local authorities, has not got the meaning it should have.
I was about to say that I, too, think the Minister has drawn a red herring across the trail in relation to this amendment. I may be very innocent but, as far as I know, county councils are not organised on the basis of the rich and the poor sections of the community. I always suspected and thought they were organised on a political Party basis.
The Senator has not a lot of experience of them.
Under the Bill as it stands at the moment, the chances of a Labour man being elected will be very remote since there will be only two members from each electoral area.
Let us look at the situation in toto. What about Donegal?
There is no Labour member on the Donegal County Council.
I know that. Let us examine the position. There will be two from each electoral area. Inevitably the position will be that there will be one Fine Gael and one Fianna Fáil and no Labour representation on an important committee of the county council.
I do not wish to interrupt the Senator for a moment, but I should explain that one can adopt the P.R. or any other system one wishes in the election of the two members from each electoral area.
How will that work when one is confined to two from each area?
What would be the use in adopting the P.R. system in two-seat constituencies? The Minister talks about P.R. and says there will be two from each electoral area.
Let the entire council then elect the two members by P.R. The entire council can draw up a panel if it wishes.
Who would act as returning officer?
So long as I am not asked to do it, I do not care.
The estimates committee is a very good idea. Why insist on this provision of only two? I think the amendment meets the situation because it provides that each electoral area will have representation on this estimates committee and it also provides that there shall be a balance of political representation.
I think this is too stereotyped in its present form. Consider the position of a county with four county electoral areas: in that county the estimates committee should be composed of eight members—that is, two must come, as the section stands, from each of the four county electoral areas. I think there should be some little give and take and the provision should not be quite so definite as that so as to give the county council some power. I think county councils on the whole exercise their powers properly. They have not made many mistakes. On the whole they elect fairly good committees. They have not made many mistakes even in the appointment of rate collectors and the man who is elected to a sub-committee of the county council or appointed as a rate collector, for that matter, must be a fairly good man; he must have some of the qualities one way or another. That is why I think the Minister should not confine it as it is confined at the moment.
The Minister seemed to be quite sincere, indeed, when he was anxious to ensure that the rich, irrespective of political affiliations, should not form an unholy alliance to grind the faces of the poor in certain areas. I do not think that will happen. Indeed, it would be an ill-day that it did happen. I think it can be left to the efficiency of both Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil to ensure that it will not happen and, mark you, it is quite a good justification for political Parties if they do safeguard the people against such an unholy alliance as the Minister fears might take place in Donegal, for instance. I do not think that would happen in Leitrim, and if it happened in Donegal it would be a reflection on the efficiency of both the political Parties there. If the Minister is really fearful of such an alliance as that, he should confine it to one member from each county electoral area. There would then be ample safeguards since the committee is a very small one.
I have some experience of estimates committees. Where you establish a committee of seven or eight members, they have to report back to the full body and the full body then spends as much time all over again discussing the estimates and criticising what the estimates committee has done. I am afraid we are wasting a lot of time here. I think it should be left open to the different bodies to appoint an estimates committee, if they so desire.
They need not appoint such a committee if they do not want to.
But the Minister has a provision now which will confuse the situation. I sat on an estimates committee and we decided, because of the discussion that would inevitably take place subsequently, that the whole council should be on that committee and discuss the estimates, without the Press or any extraneous interest being represented.
You cannot do that now if you follow what is in the Bill. I think on the Report Stage there should be a simple amendment leaving it open to the council.
The whole council can be on the committee if they like.
I am aware of that, but the clause is still there.
That is only if the Senator wants to set up the committee I want. Local bodies can still set up the type of committee they have in Donegal if they want to.
They cannot set up a committee similar to that in Donegal. According to this provision they must set up their own estimates committee.
They can call it an advisory committee or anything they like.
Unfortunately under this section they must form it in a certain way. Up to this we could form our own committee in whatever way we wished. It is my opinion that the committees we did form were much better than anything that will be appointed under this provision. If the Minister would delete the entire section the status quo would be maintained and that would be most beneficial in regard to every county.
I think there is something in what Senator Hickey says. I know we had an estimates committee and it was composed of all 12 members. They attended at least three nights a week for about three weeks and examined everything in detail. Rich and poor were equally interested in that examination because these members are all ratepayers. The members interested in the tenants of corporation houses, for instance, were as anxious to see good value given as the larger ratepayers were.
Would the Minister reconsider this and see whether or not he could redraft the section between this and the Report Stage? Would he be prepared to make some suggestions to us on the Report Stage in relation to this matter?
I shall certainly consider that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In sub-section (4), line 24, to delete "two members" and substitute "at least one member".
I appeal to the Minister to consider this question in relation to the representation from the poorer districts of Donegal. In my experience what the Minister has said does not apply.
I intend to ensure that it will apply. The Senator does not know what the new council will be like. I want to ensure that the Senator will have representation on it because the Senator's Party will be in a minority.
The ratepayers' association in Donegal consists of about three people. They never have and never will, in my belief, be able to sway opinion as far as the local council is concerned.
Go to the local elections and tell the people that in East Donegal. However, I shall consider the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 27:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (b), line 35, to delete "prepared" and substitute "approved".
I ask that the Minister should not put the onus on the estimates committee of preparing the financial statement and that all the estimates committee should be asked to do is to approve of the financial statement which has been prepared, as it will be prepared in all cases, by the officials. Otherwise, it will mean that the estimates committee will be asked on numerous occasions to prepare the financial statement. It would be sufficient simply to permit the estimates committee to approve of the statement which will be prepared by the manager and his staff.
Do you mean to approve—to accept it?
Is the section not merely permissive?
The section says "shall be prepared and submitted" and I want the word "prepared" substituted by the word "approved".
I would not let them approve of the estimates.
The committee to approve of the financial statement.
I would not let them approve of it at all. It is a matter for the entire council.
Approved before it is submitted to the entire council.
They would not submit it, if they did not approve of it—approval for submission.
"Approved and submitted." I want the word "approved" to be used instead of "prepared."
I do not follow the Senator at all.
The officials prepare the estimates and the council have to approve of them.
That is exactly the amendment I want the Minister to accept—that the officials will prepare the financial statement.
Surely you do not think for one moment that the estimates committee is going to prepare the estimate?
They will have the assistance, advice and guidance of every official on the council they want.
The section says: "Shall be prepared and submitted."
In every case, by the manager.
Agreed, but in order to prevent the estimates committee having to meet on two or three occasions to prepare the financial statement——
They will not be asked to meet to prepare it. It will be submitted to them and they will examine it carefully.
Submitted for their approval?
That is what I want. The final submission of it to the council will be done by the committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 might be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 28:—
In sub-section (2) line 50, before "shall" to insert "and accountant".
I always feel that it is desirable that the accountant should be present at each meeting of the estimates committee.
He must, if he is requested.
Yes, if he is requested, but it is mandatory on the manager to be present at the estimates meeting.
Not if he has other business to do somewhere else.
Agreed, but the same thing should apply, so far as the accountant is concerned.
If they want him, all they have to do is to make certain he is there—or any other official.
If it were set out in the Act that the accountant should be there the same as the manager, it would be very desirable.
It would be desirable that they should have the whole staff at their disposal, and so they will if they want them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 29 not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In sub-section (1), line 7, before "shall" to insert "or delegated officer".
According to this section, it is mandatory on the manager to attend the estimates meeting of the council, but there is no provision whereby he can delegate an officer to attend in his place and I suggest that the amendment should be accepted.
Would the Senator explain what exactly is at the back of the amendment? Is it that he does not want the manager present?
I want the manager present, but if he cannot attend——
There is provision in the section for it. He must send some person to represent him there. If the estimates committee want any other individual to attend, they can bring him there.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
I move amendment No. 32:—
To add at the end of sub-section (1): "Notice of the estimate of the expenditure shall be set out in the agenda of the proposed resolution".
According to the Bill, the council at any meeting can pass further expenditure which has not been provided for in their estimates and that means that very substantial expenditure might be incurred which has not come before the estimates committee. In fact, the notice of motion may not contain, and usually does not contain, the amount of expenditure which will be involved by the passing of the particular notice of motion. Sometimes these notices of motion are reached only after lunch or in the evening, when very few members are present.
They are just like the members of this House at the moment. The members of the local authority have not been made aware of the expenditure which a few councillors interested in the particular motion are going to impose on the following year's estimates. Usually, a council comes in with a very substantial debit balance as a result of moneys voted in consequence of these motions during the year, and I feel that if this estimates committee is not to get control of this particular type of expenditure, at least the members of the local authority should be made aware of the amount involved in the agenda sent out to them, and for that reason I suggest that the figure should be incorporated in the notice of motion, so that members will be informed of it before the motion comes before them. At present, these notices of motion are continually on the agenda and almost never do the members know until the county manager, the county secretary or county engineer announces the amount involved in the passing of these motions.
I am amazed at the reason my friend moves this amendment—that county councillors are not present after lunch. I will give you a very good remedy—pay no travelling expenses to any councillor who does not attend the meeting after lunch and you will have a full attendance. It is undesirable to restrict local authorities in the way suggested. They should be allowed to fix their own procedure. They can do what the Senator wants by their own standing orders and there is no necessity for the amendment. They should be allowed to authorise the excess expenditure at any meeting. For example, it may be unanimously agreed that a certain work be carried out, but then in the course of the work it may be found that more money is required. You cannot hold up work like that. There is power in their own standing orders to do what is contained in the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 11 agreed to.
Sections 12, 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In sub-section (1), line 38, before "and" to insert "and if his objection is supported by the legal adviser to the local authority".
This section gave rise to a discussion on the Second Reading and it was suggested that the county manager, by threatening various penalties on the council, could bluff them into acceding to his demands. In order to strengthen the hands of the council it is suggested in this amendment that the manager's objection be supported also by the legal adviser, that unless those two high officers concurred in the objection, it would not be effective.
The principal objection I see is that in some counties the legal adviser lives a considerable distance away from the seat of council meetings and it is very difficult to know in advance when such a matter would arise. It would mean requisitioning him and having the legal adviser present at every meeting.
There is nothing wrong in having him present.
When you have to pay a fee and travelling expenses——
You have to pay an annual sum.
Not at all; you pay on a solicitor and client basis and travelling expenses, and he may have to travel a considerable distance. If such a matter were raised, there might be no library to hand and it might be necessary to adjourn and have a little research into the law before he would be able to give a decision. That is the principal objection. Although there is a lot in the suggestion the Senator has made, I do not believe that any manager or delegated officer would dare to give advice to a local authority which would not be the law of the country. If he did, the council would be in a position to deal with him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 35:—
In sub-section (1), line 38, before "and" to insert "the proposals shall be adjourned for the opinion of the legal adviser, if the opinion is not available at the meeting".
This arises out of the last amendment and provides that the matter should be adjourned for the opinion of the legal adviser.
They may do that without any provision here. They may adjourn.
There is provision whereby they may adjourn, but if the manager objects at the meeting——
You can take it from me that they may order their own procedure and they can adjourn.
But they need not adjourn if they do not so wish.
And I am not going to compel them to do so.
They need not take a decision.
They may defer a decision.
The whole idea behind this was that it deterred members from taking decisions.
They are not all cowards. They are going to face up to their responsibilities.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Could we have this discussion without question and answer? We would make better progress.
It is usually only when the manager objects to something, that this resolution is passed requesting this to be done. Obviously, the manager will be rather opposed to it or prejudiced against it. For that reason, he would be the person who would be more ready to object. His grounds for objection might not be just as valid if he considered the matter and were allowed to sleep over it and if in the meantime he sought the opinion of the legal adviser. I understood that in these cases these matters would appear on the agenda and that the manager would know in advance that the matter was being raised and would have the legal opinion there—or the legal adviser, as the case may be— and that it would not matter such a great deal if it were not necessary to have the matter adjourned for that opinion.
The whole objection to this section is the fact that there are times when there may be a grave doubt as to whether the matter will cause a deficiency in funds or something like that and at the same time the local authority may not press the matter because of the warning or the big stick which is being used by the manager at the time. Therefore, I think this is desirable, if the manager had not taken the precaution of having his objection backed up by some other opinion. If he were not backed up by some other opinion, he might not be so ready to get up and object.
If the local authority is not satisfied with the advice tendered by the manager, all they need do is adjourn their decision and instruct him to procure legal advice or to have the legal adviser present on the next occasion. We do not need to have him present on every occasion. As the Senator knows better than I do, very often a written opinion, which costs less, is much better and will satisfy querists better than a viva voce opinion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 36:—
In sub-section (10), page 16, before paragraph (c), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(c) a chief engineering officer.
In order to cut short this discussion, the most apt way would be, I suggest, for the Minister to accept the amendment. Section 17 deals with the delegation of any function of the manager to an approved officer, subject to the approval of the Minister to such delegation. That is sub-section (1) (a). In (b), special provision is made for the delegation of health functions to an approved health officer, subject to the approval of the Minister for Health. In sub-section (10), which is the one I wish to amend, we find a definition of the term "approved officer"—(a) the county secretary, (b) the town clerk, or (c) "an officer approved of by the Minister as an approved officer for the purposes of this section." Although earlier on we had a provision for the delegation of power by the manager, with the sanction of the Minister for Health, to a health officer, to the county medical officer, there is no specific provision here for the delegation of power by the county manager to the other important technical officer, the county engineer.
I made the point on the Second Stage that, in fact, in relation to the expenditure of money and plans concerned with the expenditure of money, the chief engineering officer to the county council has perhaps more responsibility than any other technical officer. From the practical point of view, it seems to me important that he should have the right to have direct contact with the council, with the various committees and so on, and should when matters arise which concern him, have the right to address them, to go before them and speak for himself rather than find himself obliged to speak through the mouth of a clerical officer, county secretary or town clerk. It seems obvious, both from the point of view of the county council and the technical officer, that far smoother working will result if the technical officer is given the same access and the same power as is given to the clerical officer, the county secretary or to the town clerk.
Probably this point need never have arisen if the Minister had not found it necessary specifically to name the clerical officers, county secretary and town clerk. Did it not become apparent, then, that the omission of the technical officers, the chief engineering officers, is a deliberate one that has been thought out by the Minister? I am not satisfied that paragraph (c), which allows the Minister to approve practically any officer for this purpose, is sufficient. I think we are in honour bound to recognise the position, prestige, importance and responsibility of the chief engineering officer to the county council by specifically mentioning him here and that is the purpose of my amendment, which would simply add a third paragraph and after the words "a town clerk" insert "(c) a chief engineering officer".
Be it far from me to suggest that a town clerk or a county secretary is in any way superior to a county engineer, a county solicitor or a county medical officer of health or a county architect. I think they are all on a par, these professional men and if you want my opinion, on a higher level than a county secretary, but a town clerk or a county secretary deals with the administrative work of the council and that is the only reason why I put them in. "An officer approved of by the Minister" can cover the county engineer, county medical officer of health, county solicitor or county architect.
It would not cover the county medical officer of health.
He is already specifically included.
If approved of by the Minister for Health, it could. There is one thing about a county engineer. Suppose for a second that certain powers were delegated to the county engineer; he must submit his accounts to the county secretary and the county accountant before they come back to himself, the delegated person. In other words, his own accounts as county engineer must go through the county secretary of the county before they come back to him as deputy county manager. That would be very embarrassing. But there is nothing to prevent his being appointed. The only reason I did not write these county technical officers into the Bill is that I did not think it right that I should write them in and have a list of county engineers, county medical officers of health, county solicitors, county architects and the chief fire officer. I merely thought of these two classes, the county secretaries and the town clerks, because they deal with the administrative side. They are the people who do this routine administrative work. The county manager merely signs the orders and my intention was to avoid the necessity of bringing them in to sign these routine orders.
I should like to deal very briefly with that. Two points arise. One is that an administrative officer dealing with some points on behalf of the technical officer would proceed more slowly than if the chief engineer was himself at liberty to come before the council. I think we all realise that having to act through somebody else means delay, and may mean misunderstanding. The Minister says he can appoint the county engineer, if it is found necessary. The other point is that the Minister did not find it necessary to mention any of the others, but in fact he has mentioned one in sub-section (1), the county medical officer of health.
I do not deal with the medical officers of health.
I feel that the Minister for Local Government should give to the chief engineering officer, who comes under him, the same attention and status as to that other officer who comes under another Minister.
Is the Senator pressing the amendment?
I would like to hear from the Minister whether he has any positive objection to adding that name?
I think the Senator misunderstands. What I want to avoid is having a county manager doing routine work. If a charwoman is to be employed in Kilkenny, I do not want the county manager coming up from County Waterford to sign the order. It is the small routine orders, the day-to-day routine work, that I want to delegate and not anything important at all. It is not for the purpose of placing power in the hands of some excutive officer that I ask for this power of delegation. It is to enable a junior town clerk to sign routine orders and to give the county manager more time to concentrate on administrative work.
Would not a similar simplification ensue in relation to the county manager's work if that certain power could, where necessary, be given to the chief engineering officer?
But could we not mention him by name?
I cannot envisage such important persons as the county surveyors signing routine orders because, as I emphasised, the county manager will delegate those minor powers.
Do I understand the Minister as suggesting that the chief engineering officers do not want these delegated powers, because my information is that they do, and would welcome them?
I really could not say. I have not got their views. They have made no representations to me.
Is the Senator pressing the amendment or withdrawing it?
I am not clear on that point about representations. I understand that representations were made to the Minister on the subject of delegated powers for the chief engineering officers.
If I may explain to Senator Sheehy Skeffington, if he withdraws the amendment he can put it down again, but if it is put and defeated he cannot.
I must correct myself with regard to representations. Representations in writing were made to me some weeks ago.
In view of that fact it is demonstrable that no harm could come from including their names and that we find now they have asked to have their names included and that no harm could come from that—would the Minister not accept the amendment?
I am not going to have any rivalry between the professions. I am not going to put the engineers or the legal advisers or others in.
The county medical officer of health is in the Bill.
Yes, but only because the Minister for Health is concerned.
It is not true to say you have excluded him.
No, it is the health officer, and he is not mentioned actually.
Is the Senator pressing or withdrawing the amendment?
I think I feel inclined to accept the hint given by Senator Professor Hayes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 37 to 51, inclusive, not moved.
Sections 18 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 15th June.
The Seanad adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Wednesday, June 15th, 1955, at 3 p.m.
