I explained on the last day the purpose of this Bill was to effect three main changes in the Act of 1926 which set up the Local Appointments Commission. The first was to transfer to the Civil Service Commission the duties that now devolve on the Local Appointments Commission, calling the Civil Service Commission the Local Appointments Commission.
The second was tó give local authorities a discretion, which up to this has been vested in the Local Appointments Commission—that at the request of the local authority a panel of not less than three names be submitted. The third was an alteration in the methods of selection. I went on to discuss the personnel of the present Civil Service Commission. It was explained by the Minister for Finance on the introduction of this Bill in 1926 that one of the three members of the Civil Service Commission was unwilling to take on the work of the Commissioner of the Local Appointments Commission for reasons best known to himself. I explained on the last day that to my mind it was rather an unreasonable suggestion that, in addition to other responsibilities and duties that he discharges, he should be asked to take on this particular work. However, even though it were unreasonable to ask him, the Executive Council was quite willing to ask and to press that particular member to take on this work and, as they have been unsuccessful so far, I might invite the Deputy who moved this Bill to see what effect his powers of persuasion would have in this connection. It comes to this, namely, that if this Bill were to pass and if that member persists, as I believe he would, in objecting to take on the responsibility of the duties of a Local Appointments Commissioner we would be faced with finding the personnel for a new Civil Service Commission or, at least, finding one other person who would undertake the responsibilities of that office. The other member of the Local Appointments Commission could not undertake that duty. The time which he devotes to the work of the Local Appointments Commission is at present as much as can be afforded, perhaps, more than can be afforded out of the time allotted for other duties.
We would then be faced with the position under the amending Bill now before us of having two Commissions upset, and, I presume, having to look outside for another Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. At the moment, neither of these bodies costs the State anything in respect of personnel. Two civil servants with the Ceann Comhairle act on the Civil Service Commission. Three civil servants act on the Local Appointments Commission. That work is done in addition to their other duties in the Civil Service. I take it that that point is quite clear, because we are invited to upset two Commissions. Going through the statement of the Deputy who moved the Bill, it would appear as if it were the simplest matter in the world to change the administration so that the Civil Service Commission would discharge the duties now discharged by the Local Appointments Commission. The second point, however is the material one in this measure. The Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, was introduced for one main purpose and that was to secure in the appointment of officials of local authorities the very best qualified persons for each post vacant. Stripped of all its language and verbiage, that was the main consideration. The main consideration in this Bill is to secure that some person, other than the best qualified, will be appointed. Local authorities are being invited, if this Bill becomes law, to ask for a panel of persons, not less than three. Obviously, if you have others in competition with the best qualified candidate, all the canvassing, all the local influence, about which so much was said on the introduction of that measure two years ago, will be resurrected and, obviously, the best qualified candidates, when they have to run the gauntlet of the Selection Board, or an examination plus influence with the local authority, will not be attracted in coming forward for examination in such case.
What is the purpose of sending down more than one name except to invite the local authority to appoint someone other than the best? That is the purpose of this measure, to secure that the best qualified person will not be appointed in future. The Deputy may smile, but that is its meaning, stripped of all the language which he used during the last few days, and this measure to restore public confidence will be really a measure to invite local authorities to appoint others than the best qualified. The standard of candidates appointed under the 1926 Act has been high and the general result has been good. After all, the Central Government have a right to some voice in connection with these appointments. The distribution from the Central Fund last year to local authorities was about £3,000,000. What do we ask in return? What do you deprive local authorities of in this connection? Simply patronage, and preventing the appointment of persons not best qualified. That is a matter that is affecting public confidence, and the method of restoring it, according to the mover of this Bill, is to enable local authorities to appoint persons other than the best qualified.
What about the poor man's son? What about the rights of democracy if there be not some premium for talent and capacity to fill these offices? The Deputy has not explained how the poor man's son will secure by merit alone appointments under this Bill if it be passed. What will the confidence be of those best qualified in applying for those positions? It would simply be waste of time on their part unless they have a local pull. Amendments to the same effect were moved here in the Dáil and got very little support when the Bill was introduced in 1926. Amendments to effect the same purpose, to provide a panel of candidates, were moved in the Seanad, and the Minister stated that he would prefer to withdraw the Bill than to have amendments of that character placed in the Act. There is a discretion at present in the Commissioners as to the sending down of more than one name. That discretion has been exercised on one or two occasions, and on one occasion the candidates' marks in the examination were given. In one case the Commissioners were roundly denounced for placing the responsibility of selecting one of two names on the local authority. They were asked to select the best candidate, and the Commissioners were criticised in respect of that.
The Commissioners, early in the sphere of their administration of this Act, had to make up their minds as to whether they would send down more than one name, and the first consideration which presented itself to their minds was the necessity of sending down the name of the best qualified candidate. Secondly, if the Commissioners presented more than one name, where were they going to stop? I noticed that the Deputy, in moving the Bill, referred many times to qualifications. He said "a person qualified." I think he mentioned that at least on two occasions in the course of his speech. Secondly, he mentioned "perfectly qualified"; and, thirdly, I think he mentioned a person "over whose qualifications the Civil Service Commissioners would stand." The Commissioners were satisfied that if more than one name were to be sent down, their first consideration—the best qualified candidate—would go by the board. Their second objection was, where was the line to be drawn; and the third was that mentioned already —that if more than one name were sent down, the attraction for the best qualified person for the position would not be as keen as it had been up to then. If there is one thing that has been achieved in appointments made under the Local Appointments Commission it is that the standard of the applicants for the various posts has been good. With that degree of public confidence which the Deputy affects not to see, not to hear, and not to know, there has come a marked improvement in the standard of candidates for the various positions.
I do not propose to say more in connection with the third main consideration; that is, to restrict the discretion of the Commissioners in the matter of the selection of the best qualified candidate for appointment, and put it in the hands of the local authority. I will just mention one particular case. We will suppose that a vacancy occurs for a dispensary doctor, and that it is within the competence of the local authority to ask for a written competitive examination. I need not say that the time of the Minister and the time of the local authority would be wasted to a very considerable extent in pointing out that that would not be a suitable method for selecting the best person for appointment as dispensary doctor. As regards the minor points in the Bill, Section 3 is unnecessary, as all those posts have been brought by order under Section 2 (c) of the Act of 1926, with one exception. That will be brought under the Act when the occasion arises for the making of an appointment under the Act. That is the case of the appointment of a chief clerk to a County Council. As I have said before, Section 4 of the principal Act, which this Bill proposes to repeal, must go out if we are to have a staff for doing the work of the Local Appointments Commission. As I stated in the course of the Deputy's speech, a preference is given to candidates with local knowledge and experience, but not to such an extent as to allow for the appointment a person whose qualifications would be seriously under the standard of those of a person not having local knowledge or experience. The passage of this Bill would, to all intents and purposes, throw a certain veil of respectability over the old method of appointment. It is a retrograde step. It is an unnecessary, useless and bad Bill, and I recommend the House to reject it.