Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jan 1971

Vol. 69 No. 5

Local Government Services (Corporate Bodies) Bill, 1971: Second Stage.

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

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Molloy)

The purpose of this short Bill is to enable the Minister for Local Government to establish by order, from time to time, corporate bodies to provide specified services for himself and for local authorities. In case there might be any misunderstanding on the point, I should emphasise at the very outset that the Bill is not intended to interfere in any way with, or detract from, the powers of local authorities, nor would it be fair to describe it as a move towards centralisation. Its sole object is to enable suitable machinery to be established to make available to local authorities certain kinds of services which, of their very nature, need to be organised on a countrywide basis or which, for one reason or another, cannot be provided by local authorities individually, or even in groups.

The present Bill is not without precedent for it is based, to a large extent, on the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act, 1961, under which corporate bodies may be established to perform functions in, or in relation to, the provision of health services.

The immediate need for a power to establish corporate bodies, to provide services for the local authorities for which the Minister for Local Government is responsible, arises from representations by trade unions and staff associations on the one hand, and the county and city managers on the other, about the impracticability of operating the present Local Authority Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme in a satisfactory manner in present circumstances. The fact is that, at present, the managers as a group—who constitute the official side under the scheme— cannot provide themselves with the staff and other facilities they require for the purpose of examining salary and wage claims and engaging in prompt and meaningful negotiations with the staff side.

It is essential, therefore, that action should be taken to set up an organisation to provide the facilities required. Effective steps cannot be taken without legislation because there is no statutory provision for collective action by local authorities in this matter. Hence, the present Bill.

The Bill, as introduced, is framed in general terms so that it can be used to establish bodies to provide other services for local authorities, or for the Minister, if this is found to be necessary or desirable. While no decisions have yet been made to provide other services for local authorities by corporate bodies, I think it would be a pity not to avail of the opportunity of making general statutory provision to enable other services to be made available in this way if the need should arise.

The Bill itself is a relatively simple and straightforward one and I propose, therefore, to refer only to a few of its main provisions.

Section 3 (1) is the key provision in the Bill. It is this subsection which confers the power to establish corporate bodies by order. The effect of section 2 is that such bodies may be established only to provide services for the Minister, or for local authorities within the meaning of the Local Government Acts, or health boards. A corporate body, once established for the purpose I have just mentioned will, however, be able to make its services available to other public bodies, or associated bodies, under a procedure which is provided for in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 3.

Section 4 sets out the kinds of provisions which may be included in establishment orders; these relate to administration, finances, membership, staffing and so on. On staffing, I might mention that provision is made for applying, in appropriate cases, the Local Appointments Commission machinery and the Local Government Superannuation Acts. In so far as finances are concerned, the Seanad will appreciate that this is a matter which will have to be considered separately in each case. Provision is made, however, for grants, for levies on local authorities and for the charging of fees, so that a suitable method can be selected in each case.

Section 7, in addition to providing for the laying of orders before the Houses of the Oireachtas, requires a copy of each order to be sent to each Member of each House as soon as possible after it is made. There is also provision for annulment within seven sitting days after presentation. These provisions are similar to those of the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act, 1961.

In other legislation, the period during which a resolution for the annulment of a statutory instrument may be moved is 21 sitting days. Senators will appreciate, however, that if a corporate body established for a particular purpose are to get on with their job, they cannot do so if the threat of dissolution by reason of annulment of the relevant establishment order is hanging over them for the long period which might be represented by 21 sitting days. Under the proposed procedure, the making of the order will have been brought immediately to the notice of every Member. In these circumstances, I am confident that the Seanad will agree that the period of seven sitting days is not an unreasonable time in which to allow a Member to move to secure annulment if he wishes to do so.

The proposed procedure for establishing corporate bodies is a convenient, speedy and cheap one. It will ensure that the Dáil and Seanad, and individual Members, will be kept informed of the establishment of any corporate bodies and that the Oireachtas will, in the last analysis, have control over the establishment of such bodies.

I commend the Bill to the Seanad.

Mr. Boland

As the Minister has said, the first and immediate purpose of this Bill is to give some sort of statutory standing to the City and County Managers' Association, as I understand it, so as to enable them more effectively to carry out negotiations with the unions representing the staff of local authorities and to implement the schemes of conciliation and arbitration which in the recent past have not been operating as effectively as one might have liked.

As most Members of the House will know, the City and County Managers' Association are at present rather an ad hoc body with no real powers and, I think, no power to bind their members to adhere to any decision which they may make or any recommendation which they may make. Those of us who are members of local authorities have, I am sure, in other fields from time to time run foul of decisions made by this group of public servants. Generally it is to be welcomed in that field also that they should now have some statutory position and be answerable, to some extent, to the Minister and, to a smaller extent, to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

One of the main things which I hope the Minister will clarify for us when he is replying to the Second Stage speeches is whether it is proposed in the establishment order to give a statutory position to the City and County Managers' Association in any field other than that relating to staff matters and the schemes of conciliation and arbitration. Were that so I think it would deserve the very close scrutiny of the House. Again I would emphasise that members of local authorities have very often felt that this was a rather strange body operating in a rather strange way which seems to maintain a fairly close liaison with the Custom House, if one is to interpret its decisions in that particular way.

I know that for some time past the unions and staff associations have been very perturbed at the system which obtains in relation to claims for better salaries and conditions. The procedure up to this has been that the staff panel of the unions concerned negotiated with the managers' association, the members of which latter body then went back to their local authority and recommended whatever agreement had been made on this informal basis. The scheme apparently worked with some defects until, I am told, 1963 when there was quite an amount of dispute and difficulty and the threatening of possible withdrawal of services from the local authorities in the Dublin area.

At that stage, apparently, some form of a scheme of conciliation and arbitration was devised but it was not one which was particularly successful or, I think, one which was particularly palatable to the unions concerned in so far as the working conditions of the staff of the local authorities were not a subject for discussion at the conciliation or arbitration proceedings. As time borrowed time, apparently the unions found that they were becoming increasingly restricted in the amount of things which they could negotiate on behalf of their members.

Now, if I have interpreted the Bill and the Minister's speech correctly, what we will have is a statutory corporate body set up, and I understand the members will be managers of each local authority throughout the country and probably the CEOs of the eight health boards, and that they will be empowered to employ a staff with, one would hope and expect, professional negotiators who could more speedily and more effectively negotiate claims from the unions. Apparently the situation is that for some time past there has been a considerable backlog of claims and deadlines set which were to have been met and which, indeed, the managers' association just discovered they physically could not do.

Obviously, the setting up of this new corporate body will be something to be welcomed very much by the managers and, I understand, equally so by the unions. Let us hope that this, perhaps, might eliminate the sort of things which we saw in the recent past, such as the pharmacists' strike which could, to some extent, be attributed to the failure of the existing machinery to function properly. For instance, there is the position for so very long of nurses and student nurses and their long awaited dealings with the City and County Managers' Association before they got even a partially successful conclusion to their claims. One would hope that once this new body is set up and operating there might be better relations between the staff and management in regard to claims for increased wages and salaries and especially with regard to claims for better working conditions.

There is really not, I think, any form of binding arbitration in this country. I understand that the generally accepted view is that arbitration which would be binding is not really in the public interest or in the public good. I speak personally here, but it seems to me there is a fair case to be made for arbitration which, if not binding, would be almost so. I imagine that most of the engineers working for local authorities throughout the country would very earnestly at this stage agree that arbitration and the arbitrators' findings should be made binding in some way or another. However, that is another day's work. It is certainly involved in the first body which is, apparently, to be set up under this Bill once it is passed.

I should like if the Minister would make very clear what exactly will be the directive given to this new body and the scope which they will have in relation to staff, wages and conditions and whether they will have any statutory powers in relation to any other matter affecting local government. The Minister has said the Bill is basically a copy of the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act, 1961, which enabled the Minister for Health to set up certain corporate bodies to provide ancillary services in the health field and, I think, that nobody who has had any experience in that field has had any crib with the way the Act has worked up to this or with the way in which the various bodies which were established have operated.

It is probably correct to say, and the Minister, I am sure, will be able to advise us on this, that heretofore if the Minister really wanted to see any body set up to provide ancillary services in the field of local government it was usually done either by way of a short Act, passing through the Houses or by setting up a company in the normal way under the Companies Act. Obviously, it would be expected that from now on any other bodies being set up in the field of local government would be set up under the provisions of this Bill, which will serve to regularise the procedure in this regard.

One of the main merits of the 1961 Health (Corporate Bodies) Act was that it provided for superannuation benefits for the employees of any of the bodies operating under it. I am very glad to see that this Bill also seems to be providing both for superannuation benefits and for the carrying over of the period served by an employee with any of these bodies, should he so transfer to a local authority. Perhaps it could be clarified whether somebody coming from a local authority to work for a body set up under an establishment order under this Bill would be allowed to carry his superannuation benefits and credits with him, when he went to work for this new body.

Reading the rather brief discussion on the 1961 Act, I noticed that the Minister for Health at the time seemed to envisage that some of the bodies operating in the health field which have been set up as private companies might wind themselves up, and that he would reconstitute them under an order made under that Act. Perhaps the present Minister for Local Government intends to regularise the procedure in the local government field and to bring some of the bodies operating in that sphere under the scope of this Act. I am a little vague on this but I was thinking in terms of organisations like An Foras Forbartha, the Road Safety Council and that sort of body. The House would also be very interested to hear, apart from the regularising of the managers' association, if the Minister has in his mind the intention to make any other establishment orders or to set up any other sort of bodies to provide a backing service in the field of local government. Perhaps he might also refer to that when replying.

There are one or two differences in this Bill, which is so obviously rather faithfully copied from the 1961 Act. The most striking one is in subsections (7) and (8) of section 3. In the 1961 Act these subsections do not appear at all. For some reason best known to the Minister, the Bill before us today disqualifies Members of either the Dáil or Seanad from serving as members of any body set up under an order made under this Bill. It also provides that where somebody is already a member of one of those bodies and receives a nomination for election to either House, he is then automatically disqualified from being a member of the corporate body from that time on. They appear to be two rather extraordinary provisions to be in what should be really a rather innocuous but useful, Bill. Perhaps the Minister has grave apprehensions about what happens in a person's mind on the day he is nominated for election to one or other of these Houses. Perhaps he feels that somebody, by virtue of being a Member of the Seanad, or even of the Dáil, could not serve effectively as a member of one of these corporate bodies. I hope that in reply the Minister will clear up this point in relation to both subsections (7) and (8).

I noticed in the discussion on the 1961 Act the reference to the anomaly between the courts being directed, in subsection (9) of section 3, to take note of the seal and statutory powers of the corporate body and the subsection following immediately which allows the Minister to allow the order setting up the body from time to time, as he so likes. Apparently the passage of time has not altered the views of the parliamentary draftsman or of the Minister's advisers. The two sections are faithfully transposed from the 1961 Act into this Bill of 1971.

The last section, which refers to the laying of orders before the House and notifying Members, is framed in a rather unusual way. The Minister has said that normally the provision is that within 21 sitting days after the order is made either House may move a resolution to annul the order. However, in relation to this case he feels seven days to be more appropriate. I would not have thought this a valid line of argument. If a Minister makes an order he usually makes it because he holds office by virtue of being a member of the majority party, and it is unlikely that an annulment order will succeed. If it does succeed, there should be some standardisation in relation to Bills of this nature. I do not see the merit of having seven days in this and seven days in the 1961 Act and 21 days in other cases, sometimes orders being laid in draft form before the Houses, and then again, as in this case, orders being laid before the Houses after they have been made. In relation to the way this House has been meeting in the past six months seven sitting days is allowing a very long time indeed for anybody to move a motion of amendment of an order. Perhaps there may be a change in this regard.

In section 4 is set out the various matters which the Minister may include in the making of an order to set up any body. Subsection (2) of that section, paragraph (f), relates to the regulating of the finances and the keeping and auditing of the body's accounts. At this stage nobody can say surely what sort of bodies may be set up by orders under this piece of legislation. However, it might not be a bad thing, had that subsection included the provision that corporate bodies established by this Act should lay their accounts before the Houses of the Oireachtas. In other fields there have been calls made recently for this type of thing to be done. I suggest to the Minister that he might consider including a paragraph like that in section 4.

I appreciate the urgency with which this piece of legislation is viewed and the real desire, both of management and of the unions, to see it through so that they may benefit by the first order made under it. It is rather strange now, hearing about the urgency and realising that the case is being fairly made, that there is an urgency about this Bill, to remember seeing it languish on the Order Paper of the other House for a considerable length of time.

The Minister, in his speech, said, in referring to conciliation and arbitration machinery:

Effective steps cannot be taken without legislation because there is no statutory provision for collective action by local authorities in this matter. Hence the present Bill.

I was just a little surprised by that remark because I did not really think that the Bill, or indeed even the proposed order, would give statutory powers to local authorities to act collectively. As I understood it, the managers' association were to be given some sort of formal standing so as to negotiate national conditions with the unions and associations representing those employed in the field of local government. The statement of the Minister is rather a sweeping one: There is "no statutory provision for collective action by local authorities in this matter. Hence the present Bill." Perhaps the Minister might like to elaborate just a little on that when he is replying.

In general, the predecessor to this in the field of health, the 1961 Act, seems to have worked very quietly and effectively, without anybody ever having complained about the type of orders that were set up through it. I welcome this Bill in the hope and expectation that it will regularise the services and ancillary services in the local government field in the same way.

Miss Owens

This, I believe, is a non-contentious Bill. I should like to reiterate some of what Senator Boland had just said and, first of all, welcome the Bill. I am particularly glad that the first debate has taken place in the Seanad rather than in Dáil Éireann. Now, to go back a little bit further than the Minister did in his introductory statement as to why this Bill is necessary, it arises out of a need that is felt very strongly by the staff association and the managers' association in the local government field. Trace back the history of industrial relations in the local government field and you see that from the local government officers' side no strike has taken place, I think, since 1926, which is a fairly good record in the Irish context.

It is also true to say that the present system is literally at breaking point and if a structure such as outlined in this Bill were not in the offing, as has been promised by the Minister, I think we would probably have found that local government officials might have broken that record.

For many years there was no system of arbitration and conciliation in local government services. It was only after sustained pressure during approximately 16 years that in 1963 we got the present scheme of conciliation and arbitration. This is a scheme whereby the staff side, represented by their staff association and trade union, can come together on the staff panel and meet the managers' association, who are represented by different managers, and agree or disagree at conciliation level and go on to arbitration where an independent arbitrator will judge the merits of the case. The staff side in 1963 accepted the present scheme purely because it was so essential that they had a scheme and not because they felt it was perfect. Indeed it has been proved to be rather imperfect. There is much demand for a broadening of the scope of the scheme and I do not think the scope of the scheme is necessarily covered by this Bill, but it will be something to negotiate with the corporate body that might be established by this Bill.

As Senator Boland has pointed out, conditions of employment are not covered by the scheme and this has been found to be a tremendous drawback because such things as allowances can be judged to be conditions of employment and cannot be negotiated. However, I do not want to hold up the debate by going into detail on the scheme. Suffice it to say that the word "conciliation" in the scheme as it exists is a misnomer because there is no such thing as meaningful negotiations and, in fact, the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks that meaningful negotiations would be possible if we had a corporate body set up under this Bill.

At present when the staff and union side lodge a claim of any size, shape or form, they meet a group of managers, individual managers who have come together for the purpose of this negotiation, and they negotiate. In fact, they exchange views. The managers' side may make an offer or they may not, and it may be accepted or it may not, and they record agreement or just disagreement. But if a problem arises in relation to the same grade, perhaps six months later, they may go back to conciliation and meet a completely different set of people on the managers' side. So that you have no continuity in this field. We contend that this is not conciliation in the true meaning of the word. I think in part the Minister accepts this as so and this is one of the reasons why he felt this Bill was necessary.

I am not often on record as being in sympathy with the managers' association and on this occasion I should like to record that I appreciate the difficulties which they have had in that they are individualists, individual managers of counties and county boroughs, and they have tremendous demands on their time in the official field. They have to do this conciliation and arbitration, if you like, as a sort of addendum to their other duties. I think it is true to say that perhaps not all managers throughout the country have been pulling their full weight and it has been left to a small few to negotiate at both stages of conciliation and arbitration.

This Bill, as introduced, should enable them to set up a proper secretariat and research service which should speed up negotiations. Indeed I take this as the purpose of it. The problems of the time lag are just so innumerable that I should not like to start listing them from A to Z, but I should like to point out that it can take, and has in fact taken, as long as four years to process the claim for an individual grade under the scheme. This, in the present-day conflict in industrial relations, is absolute and utter nonsense.

There might be individual items in the Bill that I would query. Particularly I should like to know what the Minister has in mind about the other bodies that he may visualise. I do not know if he has any concrete proposals in his mind that he has not crystalised and felt like telling us about, but I should be interested to know. Basically, I feel that this must mean better industrial relations in the local government field. For that alone, without going into the specific items in the Bill, I think it is worth welcoming it and passing it speedily by this House. It is a rare occasion where you find the trade unions, the staff associations, the managers and the Minister in complete agreement. I think this is unique enough to hope that the Bill has a speedy passage through this and the other House.

Dr. Belton

I welcome this Bill with certain reservations. At the outset I should like to pose the question: why could there not have been in 1961 an omnibus Bill to cover corporate bodies under various different Government Departments? The Minister who introduced the Health (Corporate Bodies) Bill in 1961, Mr. MacEntee, made the point that he was introducing this type of Bill at that stage to preclude his having to introduce separate Bills to set up different bodies all pertaining to health. Why could that not have been extended a shade further? Why does each Government Department have to have of necessity a Bill brought in to establish corporate body status for various bodies associated with their various Departments? My point is that one Bill could have been brought in to cover an omnibus Bill, to cover every Department of Government that establishes or proposes to establish a corporate body or corporate bodies. That is one aspect of it.

When the Leader of the House got up today and stated what the urgency of this was, I wondered where it lay but this was explained in the Minister's speech. In fact, the urgency arises out of what Senator Boland said it arose out of: to give to the managers' association a corporate body status which means, in effect, to give them a staff with which to work. That is the practical answer to that, so that they can negotiate and bring to a conclusion more expeditiously various negotiations that were going on and were being delayed. While it is not directly applicable here somebody may have realised that Senator Boland and myself had an amendment down, when the Health Bill was going through this Chamber, about negotiating with various bodies and we brought in the fact that the county managers' association were not, in fact, recognised. They were recognised as a negotiating body but for various reasons nothing came of their type of negotiation at that time. If this solves, and I believe it purports to solve, such a stalemate as that, it is very acceptable and very welcome indeed.

It states here that the county managers' association, will be a corporate body. They will have their own staff. This is what is stated here. The fact is that at the present the managers as a group, who constitute the official side under the scheme, cannot provide themselves with a staff and other facilities they require for the purpose of examining salary and wage claims and engaging in prompt and meaningful negotiations with the staff side. It is essential therefore that action should be taken to set up an organisation et cetera. What it means in effect is they are given corporate body status. They are already a negotiating body but they were not able to function because they had not staff, they had not got the weapons with which to do it and this is giving them the weapons to do it.

I want to find out from the Minister the weapons that were being used by the Civil Service branch of his Department, the staff that were there involved. Will they still be in local government or will they be seconded to the managers' association as a corporate body for this purpose, or will we have new recruitment into the Civil Service? In other words, is the Civil Service to be enlarged on foot of this Bill? Surely we have enough civil servants already to enable us to get staff to aid the managers' association when they become a corporate body? Surely we have sufficient in our present Civil Service staff to man this body or to man any other body that might be set up under this Bill. That is one aspect of this that I would like the Minister to reply on. While I do not like to repeat things which have already been said it is as well that certain points which Senator Boland raised should be repeated. He referred to section 3, subsections (7) and section (8).

Whatever way one may look at subsection (8) of section 3 of this Bill, that is a Member of either House of the Oireachtas being a member of a body established under this Act or under this section. I cannot see the purpose of subsection (7) at all. It reads:

Where a member of a body so established is nominated either as a candidate for election to either House of the Oireachas or as a member of Seanad Éireann——

Is this superfluous?

Professor Quinlan

The Taoiseach's nominee.

Dr. Belton

Oh. The Taoiseach's nominee. I see the point.

——he shall thereupon cease to be a member of the body.

I think that could be really cut out completely. It is unfair that because he is nominated he ceases to be a member of a corporate body of such a nature. The fact that he is nominated does not ensure his election. I agree with Senator Boland on both points but I want to emphasise especially subsection (7). I think that is really unnecessary and completely wrong. That could be wiped out and there would be nothing very deleterious about the Bill, if it were so wiped out.

A few other points before I sit down. The safeguarding of employees and the Local Government Superannuation Code. I am glad to see that this applies here in this Bill. There are two points that I would like to have clarified here. I should like to know from the Minister when the order is laid before the House which is the procedure there and then. I know that it must be dealt with within a specific period—I shall come to that in a moment—or that it can be annulled within a specific period. What rights has the member of the Dáil or Seanad if it is laid before each House of the Oireachas? Can they question the order of the Minister? Have they any right at all to suggest an alteration in the order? Will the Minister listen to any suggestion from either House of the Oireachtas on this particular point?

If the order is established, passed and the Minister eventually decides that something has gone wrong with this body he brings in a revocation order and lays it before each House of the Oireachtas. Can the Members of either House of the Oireachtas question his reasons for or the validity of the revocation he seeks? I should like something incorporated in this Bill that would force the Minister to enlarge on an explanation for a revocation if necessary. It is not sufficient, I think, to place the revocation order before each House of the Oireachtas with the bald statement that something is wrong. I think Members of each House of the Oireachtas should be entitled to explanations they seek because the Minister is putting down a revocation order before them.

I should also like to know what control has each House of the Oireachtas over the Statutory bodies being set up? To whom do these statutory bodies answer? In the production of their accounts, to whom will they be produced? Are they subject to the Auditor General? Will they be subject to scrutiny from each House of the Oireachtas? Will the Minister for Local Government be responsible and answerable to each House of the Oireachtas as to how these bodies carry out their duties? Can the Minister avoid responsibility? That question was answered in the Dáil but can he evade the answer by saying that he has no responsibility in this matter. This has happened when questions on semi-State bodies have come before the Dáil. Answers are being avoided because the Minister states he has no function in this matter. Are we again going to add to the list of bodies that he already has more and more bodies for which the Minister has no responsibility at all? I would like the Minister to reply on this. In essence, I accept the principle of the Bill that is before this House. It is necessary to expedite, as Senator Boland said earlier on, the negotiations that are pending between staff associations and various other bodies. I welcome the Bill to that extent. But I have reservations which I have explained and I would like the Minister to allay my disquiet on it.

Professor Quinlan

I am sorry that, in approaching this Bill, I must find myself quite a bit at variance with my colleagues who have spoken on it. I do not like the procedure adopted—the making of statutory bodies by order. I can concede that there is an urgency on the local government side to put the City and County Managers' Association on a type of statutory basis. But I have not heard any suggestion that there is any immediate urgency for any other statutory body in the field of local government. Consequently, I would much prefer to have a Bill before us to do what the Minister has in mind in this first instance, the setting up of this specific body to deal with conciliation and arbitration at local government level. Then, we would have a real opportunity here of looking at the membership of that body, making suggestions about it and so on. It seems that the composition can hardly be comprised of membership of all the city and county managers. That would make it very unwieldy. I feel also that in such a statutory body there should be some provision for continuity of State policy in regard to salary. After all, the local government is really another very important section of Government employees. I feel that it is far too important to be left as a body composed solely of the city and county managers to settle the various claims involved, where these claims will naturally have a very strong repercussion on national wage policies and on various interorganisational differences.

I would like to see the composition of the proposed body. I would also like to see what powers it has. Indeed, it is a very weak substitute for a properly drafted Bill to be told that the orders setting it up will be laid on the Table. They will be laid on the Table and we have no power whatsoever to make any alteration in such an order. All that can be done with an order is to rescind it completely and have another order brought in later by the Minister if he wishes to restore the position. That does not seem to be the way of progressive legislation. Indeed, it is just an example of the contempt with which the Houses are treated when we have such omnibus legislation brought before us. Consequently, I am very worried about the approach adopted.

The clerical side may be satisfied with this but I know that the professional staff, engineers and so on, were very dissatisfied with the functioning of the City and County Managers' Association as it has been operated. Above all, they objected to the interminable delays that were involved in dealing with this body. It is one of the most important bodies that we have been called on to set up in the field of public relations and of employee relations for a long time. I hope when the order comes that we will take the opportunity to have a full scale debate on the contents of the order without having, unfortunately, the powers that we would have if it were a Bill at that stage, without being able to change a comma in the order except by the cumbersome procedure of having to first annual the order and then having to wait for another order to be produced by the Minister. I am sorry that this approach has been adopted and I hope that it will not be adopted in future. Legislation by order is one thing; statutory bodies by order almost makes Parliament redundant.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Molloy)

First of all, I must express my thanks to the House for the welcome that they have given to this Bill. Senator Quinlan is correct in saying that this Bill is of great importance in the field of local government. Senator Owens has been very helpful and has made my task of further explanation of what the Bill is all about much easier. In her contribution she stated the case very clearly.

Since the foundation of the State there has been a very good relationship between the official side and the staff side in the local authorities throughout the country. It is my intention, while I am in the Department, to try to ensure that that happy relationship continues. In order to facilitate the conciliation and arbitration scheme set up for the local authority staffs it is absolutely essential that we give them an organisation or machinery which can assist the city and county managers in their dealings with the staff of the local authorities. I indeed am grateful to the county and city managers for the work they have done in this field to date along with their everyday duties in their own counties. However, the situation that exists cannot be allowed to continue much longer because the whole field of local government is becoming more and more complex and the claims that were being made are not being dealt with as expeditiously as one would like. I am proposing this Bill in order to provide some machinery which will enable these claims to be dealt with fairly quickly.

There are some questions which I will try to answer and those that I omit can be answered during the Committee Stage. It is important that we should remember that the immediate purpose of this Bill is only to help to remedy this problem that I refer to in relation to conciliation and arbitration. The Bill is worded in such a way as to allow for the establishment of other corporate bodies if the need arises at some future date. It may be necessary to set up some other body which could provide a service which at this time we may not be able to foresee the need for, but as Senator Belton referred to when mentioning the Health Act, we are doing it in order to provide the means and the machinery for setting up these bodies without having to come back to the Oireachtas again every time some service is required for the local authorities.

I do not know at this time what type of other services might be required in the future. It might, for instance, be desirable to establish a body to provide computer services for local authorities. Other needs may arise as the complexity and the scope of the work of local authorities continues to increase. Each body, of course, would be the subject of a separate establishment order. This would be placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas. There is no immediate intention to set up any body except the staff negotiations body.

Senator Boland referred to making arbitration findings binding. I do not intend to open up a wide issue such as this. I would remind the Senator that trade unions do not always accept arbitration findings as binding on them.

Mr. Boland

Or Ministers.

Mr. Molloy

I may say a working group is about to start on a general review of the conciliation and arbitration schemes for the local authorities service. It will be comprised of representatives from my own Department, the Department of Health and the managers and the staff side. I am grateful to the Senator for the welcome he gave to the Bill in the House.

Senator Boland inquired as to whether a person coming into the employment of a corporate body could be reckoned for superannuation purposes on any previous local authority service. The Local Government Superannuation Act is applied to a body with such previous service and can be reckoned and the Bill itself enables this to be done.

Senator Boland referred to the wording in my statement of collective action on the part of local authorities. It is correct to say that local authorities as a body cannot act collectively. They can come together and make agreements, especially where neighbouring local authorities may wish to make some agreement which would be mutually beneficial. There are associtions of local authorities but they cannot perform any statutory functions. It should be remembered that subject to certain financial controls by the elected members in regard to staff matters, managers perform the functions of the local authorities in relation to staff matters.

The different formula used in subsections (7) and (8) was referred to. These deal with the disqualification on election or nomination to the Dáil or Seanad. There is no great mystery here. The formula used in the Bill is a standard provision. It has been used in many Bills to date, but it has been adapted some time after the Health Act was passed. Examples are the recent Horse Industry Act, 1970, and the Film Industry Bill, 1970. I personally favour this clause. These bodies shall be kept above political personages.

Mr. Boland

I thought it might be because of recent events in Sligo.

Mr. Molloy

The establishment of a body to provide staff and other facilities for the official side will not in any way alter the position of the managers vis-à-vis the elected councils in these matters dealing with personnel. The elected councils will continue to have the power and responsibility to approve or otherwise any settlements reached by the official side in these negotiations. The fact that a corporate body will be established will not mean that the official side will be accountable in any way to the Minister.

Senator Belton inquired why there should not be one Bill. Every Department does not have the same needs. The Department of Health needed the powers which they sought in the 1961 Act. The Department of Local Government happen to require those powers now. That is the only reason why we are bringing them forward.

Senator Owens also mentioned this point. I would like to add that the Devlin Commission on the organisation of the public services made a recommendation which has some relevance in this respect.

There were not many other points raised. It would not be practical to suggest that each establishment order should be made with the consent of the Oireachtas. Our experience in the recent past would give a clear indication that that would not be practical. This Bill was introduced into the Dáil last July. The Irish Local Government Officials' Union have been asking me for the Bill since then and I have not been able to accommodate them. It was only to facilitate them that I sought its withdrawal in the Dáil and introduced it in the Seanad in the hope that it may be dealt with more expeditiously.

Mr. Boland

That is very complimentary to this House.

Mr. Molloy

As Senator Owens has rightly said, relationships were beginning to deteriorate unless we provided this machinery and to allow any deterioration to occur would have been a very retrograde step. I would have been partly to blame. If we were to place ourselves in the position where any future body to be set up under this Bill was to require the consent of the House, with the volume of legislation and work which comes before the Oireachtas and the remote possibility of getting that through in a short period of time, it would be highly impracticable to suggest that every establishment order should go through both Houses first.

Being desirous to do things but not having the power to do them could become very frustrating for those trying to run a Department. I take it that the House will generally accept that the making of the establishment order and the coming to the House for its consent or annulment within seven sitting days of the order having been made, is fair and just. Questions were asked as to whether it could be amended by the Oireachtas. It can only be annulled by the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, if a debate were to take place on an annulment and if it became clear to the Minister that certain amendments might meet the objections of those who sought the annulment of the Bill, I am sure a reasonable attitude could, at that stage, be adopted. The Minister has power to amend and an amendment might meet difficulties or objections which may arise.

Again I should like to thank the House for the welcome they have given to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 3rd February, 1971.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.40 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 3rd February, 1971.