Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Jun 1926

Vol. 16 No. 11

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES) BILL, 1926—REPORT STAGE.

Mr. WILSON

I beg to move amendment 1, which stands in the name of Deputy Baxter:—

"In page 2, lines 11 to 14, Section 2 (1), to delete paragraph (c)."

The object of the amendment is to exclude from the operations of the Bill minor officers such as rate collectors and others employed by local authorities. It was pointed out on the Committee Stage the difficulties that would arise if these minor officers were to be appointed by the Commission. We have given some consideration to the matter, and we think it would be better if paragraph (c) were deleted from the Bill. It has been agreed that medical officers and people requiring technical qualifications should be appointed by the Commission, but in the case of minor officers we are of opinion that their appointment should be made by the local people who will know their character and all about them, and upon whom the responsibility will fall if any defalcations occur.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (Mr. Burke)

This amendment was before the House on the Committee Stage and was withdrawn. I think that at the time Deputy Baxter was satisfied that it was an amendment that could not very well be urged. It is one that is very wide in its scope and would restrict the application of this Act. It would scarcely be worth while passing the Bill if we were to restrict its scope within the limits that the amendment indicates. If the paragraph were deleted it would mean that some very important offices should be filled without reference to the machinery of this Bill, such offices, for instance, as matron to a county home, clerk to a mental hospital, accountant to the county council, health assistant officers, etc. It is quite as necessary that we should have the machinery of the Act in those cases as in the case of professional and technical officers. For that reason I ask the Deputy not to press the amendment.

Mr. WILSON

Does not the Bill provide that in the case of an accountant to a county council the local body can promote an existing officer? Why, then, is it necessary to bring that office within the ambit of the Bill? As far as I can see, the only people who will be appointed under this paragraph are rate collectors. They would be selected from non-existing officers. We feel it would be better if these minor officers were appointed by the local bodies. If the retention of the paragraph is to be insisted on, then I think the list of offices to be filled under it ought to be set out in the Schedule. I do not think that a Commission could select suitable people to act as rate collectors in an area. The salary attached to these positions might be only £30 or £40 a year, and you must get a local man to do that work.

Mr. BURKE

As the Deputy is taking that specific instance to illustrate his argument, I may state that there is no intention to include rate collectors within the scope of the Act.

Mr. GOREY

This section is so indefinite that these minor offices can be included under it at any time, and I suggest that the Minister can give no guarantee as regards what a future Minister may do. From my reading of it you could include anyone under the section, even a tinker soldering a can at the workhouse door. The paragraph reads: "All such other officers and employments under a local authority as the Minister shall, from time to time, with the concurrence of the Commissioners, declare to be officers to which this Act applies." Sub-section (2) of Section 2 reads: "Every question or dispute as to whether any particular office or employment is or is not an office to which this Act applies, shall be decided by the Minister after consultation with the Commissioners, and such decision shall be final and conclusive." I hold that under this section the Minister's power is unlimited. The Minister may have certain ideas as to the offices that are included under this, but he can give no guarantee as to what the ideas of a future Minister may be. The whole thing is very indefinite and will lead to chaos. We do not know where we are under this.

Mr. LYONS

Under the Bill the appointment of medical officers and other officials will be in the hands of the Minister. He will have so much power that he might as well completely wipe out the local authorities altogether and appoint commissioners to govern the local areas, because, as it will be under this Bill, they will have nothing whatever to do. They will not even be able to appoint a road-worker. All that Deputy Baxter is asking in the amendment is that the local authorities should have the right to appoint people to minor offices. I do not want to see the councils of the Saorstát, which have been elected by the people, going back to the old poor law guardian type. If the people show their confidence in the local authorities, then these bodies ought to be in a position to make minor appointments.

As regards medical officers who will be appointed by the Commission under the Bill, I think that when a vacancy occurs in an area that a doctor practising there should get the preference in filling the appointment, provided he has all the necessary qualifications. If the Minister insists on the retention of this paragraph he will have all the public bodies up against him. Resolutions have been passed by public bodies all over the Saorstát asking the Government not to take the drastic powers given under this Bill. I hope that at this, the eleventh hour, the Minister will repent and accept the amendment.

Mr. GOREY

What Deputy Baxter is seeking under the amendment is to have the line fixed somewhere. Otherwise there will be disputes and chaos will result. The acceptance of the amendment would give local bodies an idea of where their duties begin and end.

Mr. BURKE

You must remember that local government is a growing institution. It is developing from day to day and year to year, and, therefore, I cannot foresee at the present time what class of officers we may have in the future that we have not now. It would be absolutely impossible for me to draw a hard and fast line with regard to these officers. Some of the officers who will be brought within the scope of the Act under paragraph (c) will be just as important as those coming in under paragraphs (a) and (b). If the principle is a right one to apply to paragraphs (a) and (b), I do not see any reason why it should not be right to apply it to paragraph (c). The same principle runs throughout the whole Act.

Mr. GOREY

I have not said, and I am not prepared to admit, that it is right as regards paragraphs (a) and (b). If the line is not fixed somewhere you will have in the future sheaves of correspondence passing between the local authorities and the Department following the meetings of the local boards. I think it would be in the interests of economy and good administration to have the line fixed somewhere.

Mr. WILSON

There is just one question I want to ask the Minister. He has agreed not to include rate collectors. Will he also agree to exclude from the operations of the Bill home help officers?

Mr. BURKE

I could not make that definite statement. I could make it as regards myself, but I could not bind future Ministers.

Mr. JOHNSON

I desire to express my views as to how this will apply. Deputy Wilson has in mind home help officers. If home help officers are placed within the category of paragraph (c) then it will follow according to Section 5 that a person to be appointed or who may be appointed by the local authority without reference to the Appointments Committee will have to be already the holder of a pensionable office or in receipt of an allowance in such office so that he will be a person who has had local administrative experience. He will be in the employment of the local authority. Unless that, he must proceed by the method of the local Appointments Committee. I think that that points to the probability that the principal offices that will be brought under this paragraph (c) will be very few and rather select offices, rather individual offices than a class of office. Therefore, I am not at all opposed to the paragraph in the new form that the Bill takes. I think that the danger that was in the original Bill has been taken out of it.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 36.

Tá

• John J. Cole.
• John Conlan.
• David Hall.
• Séamus Mac Cosgair.
• Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
• Risteárd Mac Liam.
• Patrick J. Mulvany.
• William Norton.
• Ailfrid O Broin.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Tadhg O Donnabháin.
• Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
• Seán O Duinnín.
• Donnchadh O Guaire.
• Seán O Laidhin.
• William A. Redmond.

Níl

• Thomas Bolger.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• Próinsias Bulfin.
• Séamus de Búrca.
• Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean.
• Uí Dhrisceóil.
• Michael Egan.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• Thomas Hennessy.
• John Hennigan.
• Patrick Leonard.
• Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
• Liam Mac Cosgair.
• Seán MacCurtain.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
• James Sproule Myles.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• John T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Parthalán O Conchubhair.
• Conchubhar O Conghaile.
• Séamus O Dóláin.
• Peadar O Dubhghaill.
• Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
• Eamon O Dúgáin.
• Fionán O Loingsigh.
• Tadhg O Murchadha.
• Séamus O Murchadha.
• Máirtín O Rodaigh.
• Seán O Súilleabháin.
• Caoimhghín O hUigín.
• Seán Príomhdhall.
• Liam Thrift.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Conlan and Wilson. Níl: Deputies Dolan and P. Doyle.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. NOLAN

Amendment 2 stands in my name. It reads as follows:—

"In page 5, line 25, to add at the end of Section 8 (3) the words ‘and shall also provide for the publication of the results of such examinations and for the furnishing to competitors thereat of the marks obtained by them in each subject at such examinations.'"

During the interval I had an interview with the Minister, and he has accepted the principle of the amendment, so that I ask leave now to withdraw it.

Mr. BURKE

It is not necessary to move any amendment of this nature, because the intention of the amendment is practically given effect by the usual procedure in those cases. If we were to accept the amendment as it is drafted, it would mean that publication of the marks obtained by candidates who failed would have to take place and that would be rather an invidious proceeding. I think Deputy Nolan should not press his amendment on this occasion.

Mr. NOLAN

My intention was that the names of the successful candidates should be published and that the result should be made known to the unsuccessful candidates themselves.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Fifth Stage fixed for Tuesday, 22nd June.