Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Jun 1928

Vol. 24 No. 11

PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - LOCAL AUTHORITIES (OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES) BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE (RESUMED).

Debate resumed on the following amendment by Deputy O'Connell:—
To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute the words "the Second Reading of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Bill, 1928, be deferred until a Select Committee, empowered to send for persons, papers and records, has inquired into and reported upon the working of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926."

I cannot understand the opposition to this Bill. Surely the important thing in the selection of officers for public boards is that only persons competent to fulfil the duties attaching to any office are appointed. This Bill makes provision for that. The objection appears to be that a number of names have to be sent down to the local authority for selection. This Bill makes provision that only the names of persons competent to do the work are sent down. It has been stated that in one or two cases the persons who were third, fourth or fifth on the list of candidates or that, in some cases those who only came fourth or fifth in the examination, were selected by the local bodies. I think it will be admitted that no system of competitive examination can find out certain qualities or can detect a want of certain qualities in candidates, and it is just possible that a person who would come fourth or fifth in a competitive examination might be a far more suitable person to do the work than a person who came first. The best person in the world to pass an examination might be a clever rogue. A man who would be lacking in very essential qualities might be a very brilliant scholar and might easily secure first place in a competitive examination. He might be a very unsuitable official and perhaps in the end a very expensive official if appointed to a position in the gift of a local council. Moreover the local councils are the best judges of the characters of those whom they appoint to positions. I admit of course that canvassing and local influence have a lot to do with these appointments. Still I hold it does not matter who is appointed provided a man competent to do the work is appointed, and provided he is a person of good character. This Bill gives every safeguard in that respect.

There is very serious opposition throughout the country to the Act at present in force. It takes out of the hands of local Boards power to appoint officials, and that is very gravely resented. I think it is only fair that some protest should be made against the attack made by Deputy O'Hanlon on the present Boards. He made a very grave charge to the effect that members of Boards, appointed in the 1919 elections, were practically all corrupt. He stated that in fact corruption was introduced into public life by both the President of the Executive Council and the Leader of the Opposition. That is a very serious charge. I happen to have been one of the representatives appointed in that election, and personally I resent very strongly the imputation. I do not at all admit that the members selected by Sinn Fein to go forward in 1919 were, to say the least of it, any bit more corrupt than those whom they succeeded. As a result of the extraordinary conditions that obtained during the period subsequent to the election of 1919, members of public Boards in Ireland had an opportunity, if they so wished, to be very corrupt. At the time, owing to the campaign against the English Local Government Board, the administration could have been very loose. Certain precautions had to be taken in connection with the funds of the local Councils, and I know myself that members of many of the Boards had a very great opportunity indeed of making away with the funds. No audit of the accounts took place in many cases, but I do not think that in one case throughout the country was advantage taken of that. A few members on a Board in many cases had to be appointed to take care of the funds, and to take certain measures for their protection. The result was that these men had it in their power, if they so wished, to misuse the funds, but that was not done. I think it is only fair to say that there is no foundation at all for the charges made by Deputy O'Hanlon.

Of course it is quite possible that the men appointed were not the best administrators. Many of those who could have made the best administrators took very good care not to go forward at that election. Some of the best administrators, in some counties, not satisfied with the way in which the Boards were working, asked for an inquiry into their working after some years. I happen to be a member of a Council into whose conduct of affairs an inquiry was held at the instigation of the Farmers' Union in the county. That inquiry entailed a certain amount of expense on the local ratepayers, but they discovered nothing whatever. After a long exhaustive inquiry the only thing discovered was that some member of the Council had to do some work at one time in connection with some contract—a matter of a few pounds. Nothing whatsoever was discovered against the Council. Many of the members of that Council could have made a good thing out of it if they had been corrupt. They could have benefited themselves very considerably, but when the accounts were audited after some years not a halfpenny was found to be missing. I think the same thing occurred in connection with the Clare County Council, and it is not fair to make such charges as these against the Councils elected in 1919.

I do not admit at all that always or practically in the majority of cases the wrong men are selected by these Councils. I think if they are given a fair chance the local Councils are just as well able to select suitable officials as any Selection Board. This Bill gives the greatest safeguard to all. It ensures that only the names of people competent to do the work will be sent down. The names of those who are really suitable for the work will be sent down to the Council. It does not matter whom they select, even if they select the fourth or fifth on the list, provided the fourth or fifth is quite competent to do the work. I know that in the case of an election that occurred in my own county a qualifying examination was held, and the person, a young lady, who secured No. 3 on the list, was appointed. I know that that young lady had been employed by the Council on many occasions, and that she was quite competent to do the work. However, a query was sent down by the Local Government Department to the Council as to why they appointed this young lady, who was No. 3 on the list. The difference in marks between the candidates was very small, and a rumour was very current in the district that some person or persons brought pressure to bear on the Local Government Department to question this particular appointment.

A query came down as to why the Council appointed the young lady that was third on the list. The Council knew well what they were doing. They knew this young lady was quite as well able to do the work as the person who was first in the examination. So that provided the safeguard is there that only persons competent are sent down, it gives all the safeguard that is necessary.

I do not know whether any detailed criticism of the Bill is necessary—I presume it is not— first of all, because I find that anything like detailed examination of this Bill coming from the Fianna Fáil Party is resented by them, and I should not like to do anything that they would resent very strongly.

Very considerate.

The next thing is that I think that detailed criticism has already been given by the President and by the Minister for Local Government, and that dealt with the character of the Bill itself. Personally, I feel compelled to agree with the verdict given from every quarter of the House, except the Fianna Fáil Benches, as to the merits and value of the Bill. I agree with them that it is a bad Bill. It is a bad Bill, but not because the drafting is bad—that is a consideration and a circumstance that could be overcome. If the drafting is bad, I say that it is bad because the instructions given to whoever drafted the Bill were confused and not clearly thought out. The Bill is itself confused. It is impossible to make out what it aims at, not because of any lack of draftsmanship on the part of Deputies opposite, but because I doubt very much if they knew clearly what they wanted. As I say, detailed and destructive criticism of the Bill has already been given, and I think at this stage any speaker may be spared the necessity of going into the Bill again. Everybody must feel that the Bill is bad. Nearly every party in the House is against it. So far as I can gather from one or two speeches, even the Party opposite seem to have abandoned their own child more or less. That is the only conclusion that I can draw from the speech of one of the sponsors of the Bill—Deputy O'Kelly —when he said he was prepared to vote, not apparently for the Bill, but for the hanging-up motion of Deputy O'Connell. I can very well understand his attitude after everything that was said about the Bill. I can quite well understand the attitude of the Party opposite in wanting to run away from this Bill; in wanting the House to pronounce a verdict on the merits of the Bill; being themselves at last convinced, of what everybody else was convinced of when they saw the Bill, that it is a worthless one, that it is an attempt at compromise, an attempt to reconcile really conflicting positions, to reconcile apparent acceptance of the principle of the present Act with the old system that prevailed before that Act came into force. As I say, by implication, if there is anything at all in what Deputy O'Kelly said when he spoke of accepting Deputy O'Connell's amendment—I think another Deputy on the Front Bench opposite said the same thing—if there is anything at all in that acceptance, it means that they really see the worthlessness of the Bill.

There is no real principle in the Bill in the sense that it does not stand for anything definite. As I say, it seems to be a compromise by a Party that once held—at least it was said in debate that they held—the principle of the present Act: an effort to reconcile that position and maintain that reputation of consistency that they attach so much importance to with getting the most out of what they think is the unpopularity in certain quarters of the present Act. I can only see one purpose in the Bill, if it has a purpose, and that is to destroy the present Act and yet appear faithful to the principle that appointments and promotions should be made on merit; that there should be the beginnings, at all events, of the building up of a national service in local government. I think it is an effort really to reconcile these two impossible positions that has led to the present unfortunate measure.

With all respect to Deputy Goulding, the aim in the Civil Service, and it ought to be the aim too in the local authorities, is not merely to get the candidate who has qualified, but to get the best service. You may have several people qualified, but there may be degrees in the value of the service that they can give. May I take an analogous case from my own Department? Every year there are examinations for candidates for teaching, and a large number of people qualify, in the sense of passing the examination, but only the top people on the list are selected. Does anybody suggest seriously as a policy that the Minister in charge of that Department should have the liberty to pick any candidate he liked from the so-called qualified list? That, after all, is an analogous case to the one put forward by Deputy Goulding. I do not say that an effort has not often been made to persuade the Minister that he has that power. People have pointed out to me again and again that so-and-so is qualified and that I had the power to call whom I liked. I have had to point out that the examination is strictly competitive and only the best can come in. The first aim, whether in the case of the Civil Service or the service of local authorities, ought to be to get the best service, not primarily to consider whether certain professions are satisfied, whether certain people get a reward for hard work, but to see whether the best service is given to the State on the one hand or the local authorities on the other. In doing that, I think in the long run you will not only secure the best service to the State, but also the best thing for the profession and for the individuals that go for that profession. Those who profess to support the Bill—as I say, I am doubtful whether they are really supporting it or not now—speak of a national service, and yet object to the existing Act, which is the one way towards the realisation of that particular national service.

One of the arguments put forward by Deputy O'Kelly was that publicity was necessary to restore the confidence of the people; that the public ought to know what is going on; things are done too much in the dark; let the public know, just as in the case with examinations. It is very hard, seeing that Deputy O'Kelly himself confessed he did not know what is meant by competitive selection, and seeing that in many cases competitive examination is obviously an unsuitable method for making professional appointments, to follow Deputy O'Kelly quite clearly. How do you satisfy or allay that particular type of public suspicion by sending down three names—supposing, as there has been in some cases, twenty or thirty candidates for a position? At present one name in sent down, and most of the other twenty-nine candidates are under the impression that there was dirty work; otherwise each man thinks his name would have been sent down. There is suspicion due to that; it is only human nature. Would there not be the same suspicion if you sent down three names? Does anybody believe that of the other twenty-seven not sent down, the tenth man, say, on the list would not feel that he ought to have been the first on the list? There have been cases in which a man very far down on the list believed very strongly and genuinely that he should have been first. You do not allay public suspicion by that method of sending down three names.

I do not know whether Deputy O'Kelly meant to publish the whole list or not; apparently he did. Have Deputies who support this Bill, at least those Deputies who made that demand, considered what would be the result of a publication of that kind? Supposing there were thirty candidates given, what would happen to the thirtieth placed there by the Selection Board? It would be the verdict of a competent body of his colleagues, experts and leaders of his own profession. Would that hurt him? See the danger there would be of frightening off individuals who believed well in their own qualifications, but who would hang back, because, while they believed in their own qualifications, others might have a different opinion of them. See the risk that would be run by a publication of that kind. Would you not seriously diminish the candidates who would come forward for selection?

One of the suggestions of the Bill is to hand these functions of the Local Appointments Commission over to the Civil Service Commission. How that is expected to work miracles nobody has been able to find out. Certainly nobody on the other side has demonstrated it.

Nobody on the other side said that it would work miracles.

What is the precise value of that particular provision? The personnel of the two Commissions has two out of three members in common. The machinery is the same. They have the same set of officials working for the two Commissions. The mode of procedure in the case of the Civil Service Commission, and in the case of the Local Appointments Commission, is the same. Why then this extraordinary belief apparently in the Civil Service Commission, and why the unbelief and so-called unpopularity of the Local Appointments Commission? If Deputies think for a moment they will see the answer quite clearly—namely, that it is the business of the Civil Service Commission to appoint officials at headquarters. So far as patronage was taken away from anybody, it was taken away from the Executive Council, and that was highly popular. So far as the Local Appointments Commission goes, any patronage interfered with was the patronage of the local bodies, hence the unpopularity. That is the explanation of the comparative freedom from criticism that the Civil Service Commission enjoys, and of the amount of criticism that the Local Appointments Commissioners come in for.

I suggest that the position before this Act which it is now proposed to amend, so far as mere words are concerned, but in reality which it is proposed to destroy, was a case in which you had patronage in public boards. And many of the arguments put forward for the retention of that particular patronage might as well have been put forward for the retention of patronage by the central authority. The analogy of the Dáil, as everyone will remember who listened to those debates, has been quoted again and again. Why trust the Dáil and not the local authorities; but surely, as Deputy Anthony pointed out, a moment's consideration will show that there is no analogy between the two things. The Dáil makes no appointments, even so far as selection is concerned. Ministers make no appointments in the Civil Service. The analogy of the patronage exercised by local authorities, if you are to have a similar thing here at headquarters, would be as follows:—That in case of a number of vacancies in the Civil Service the Civil Service Commissioners would send down to the Dáil three times the number of candidates that there are vacancies for, and then the Dáil would proceed to allocate which of the candidates would fill the vacancy. That is the analogy when you compare the central body and the local bodies.

I am not so sure that that particular method of procedure would shock every Deputy because, as one of the members of the Labour Party has already called attention to, Deputy O'Kelly naively put forward, apparently as a particular objection to the Appointments Commissioners, that their Party had no nominee upon it. If their Party had a nominee upon it then they would have to be satisfied with the position of that body. That is the conception underlying a great deal of what is in this Bill.

Now certain charges have been made in course of the debate in connection with the activities of the Local Appointments Commissioners. I am not going to waste any time in trying to elucidate whether or not charges of that kind were foreshadowed by the leader of the Opposition. I suppose we will leave that rather vexed question of exegesis aside and turn to the actual course of the debate. There were various interruptions, so vigorous that we on this side happened to miss the exact terms of the interruptions when the Minister for Agriculture was speaking. He thought that Deputy O'Kelly said "We will bring forward charges," but what Deputy O'Kelly said was "We did." Therefore, the suggestion is that the charges had been brought forward and apparently substantiated in connection with the activities of the Local Appointments Commission. Now, one thing is that nothing is easier than to get up here or in any other assembly or place to deal with any appointment and take one candidate, mention his qualifications, set out how brilliant he was, not perhaps all round but in certain respects, and then say: "This man was passed over. Could he have been passed over if the body was animated with the spirit that they should have been?" Nothing is easier than that. Where the facts are not before the assembly, and where the qualifications of the different candidates are not before the assembly, it is easy to make a plausible case for any one candidate. I think that is admitted. Consequently everybody will realise that the claim cannot be made by which a decision of this body or any other body would give universal satisfaction.

We must realise that these men animated with the best disposition will reach a different opinion as to the qualifications and merits of the different candidates. That happens every day in every walk of life. Even divinely instituted bodies find it is extremely difficult to give universal satisfaction, and certainly any human body of this kind is liable to err. But because another person would give a different verdict on the evidence before him is that a suggestion that there was anything in the nature of unfair dealing on the part of the Appointments Commissioners? Then, as I say, people with only very partial knowledge, having heard only one side of a case in which there are possibly ten sides, if there are ten candidates, it is very easy for a person of that kind to come to a decision that a little consideration would show is entirely unjust and entirely wrong. The Appointments Commissioners are a statutory body; they are under statutory obligations and on them in the last run must rest responsibility for whatever recommendation they make as to the suitability of the candidate. The functions of the men who have been functioning on the Selection Boards is to test the professional and relative technical qualifications of the different candidates. As I say, in the last instance it is the Commissioners who must take the responsibility for the recommendation that the Selection Boards make. That is a statutory obligation and they cannot rid themselves of it. They must reserve to themselves always the right to say that in every case as far as they are able to see it there is no case of injustice, either inadvertent injustice or otherwise. So far as the action of the Commissioners is concerned it has in fact been the invariable practice to adopt the reports of the Selection Boards on the technical and professional qualifications, if they are satisfied that there has been no miscarriage of justice and that there has been no oversight. In one case there was a wrong age stated by one of the candidates. That was afterwards discovered. In the course of the operation of the Act no case has yet occurred where the Commissioners have not adopted the views of the Selection Board on the technical and professional recommendation of the candidates. The order of merit in which the candidates are placed by the Selection Board may be disturbed by three considerations, and the principle that they are to be disturbed by those considerations has been acknowledged from every quarter of the House. A preference may be given for a knowledge of Irish, and a preference to a very small degree indeed for local connection. That is if a couple of candidates are practically equal, then if one is a local man preference is given in that direction. I think Deputy de Valera made a demand of that kind. That has been the practice of the Appointments Commissioners. The third thing that may disturb the order of merit as put by the Selection Board is an inquiry into the health and general moral character, age and so on of the different candidates. These are the only cases in which a candidate placed No. 1 on the list by the Selection Board has not been automatically submitted by the Appointments Commissioners.

In every case, including those that have been mentioned in this House, the candidate that was placed first by the Selection Board was recommended, unless the considerations that I have just referred to operated. These considerations have been approved of, I think, by every Party in this House. As I say, that has been the position. There have been cases mentioned. One was mentioned by Deputy Little. He quoted a certain Waterford paper. In quoting it he managed to leave, perhaps unwillingly or unwittingly, certain impressions on the minds of the House. Certain of these impressions were afterwards corrected by the Minister for Agriculture. But as he was quoting from that paper I think it was a pity that there were just two sentences that Deputy Little did not quote in fairness to the Commissioners, whom he said he did not want to criticise because they were unable to answer. He might have quoted a sentence, which would not have taken him long, and it would certainly have conveyed information to the House. He might have quoted the following sentence from the charge of the Judge:—"It was a source of great gratification that the appointment made by the Commissioners was the candidate placed first on the list by the Board of Examiners." He might also have quoted from the defendant himself in this action, the man in whose paper the charge appeared which was the cause of the action. He might have quoted from the leader in the paper of that same date. It was as follows: "There were six names in this document, and the total marks credited to each candidate were recorded. We are very pleased to be able to inform the citizens of Waterford that the candidate recommended by the Local Appointments Commissioners, David Sheehy, was placed first on the list and undoubtedly received the appointment on merit alone." It was a pity as Deputy Little was quoting from that paper that he quite unwittingly managed to give a rather misleading impression of the trial—that he did not quote these two relevant statements in connection with that particular case. There was a case mentioned by Deputy Ryan. He did not give the name of the particular man. The man he referred to had, he said, very excellent academic qualifications. He had excellent academic qualifications. Deputy Ryan went on to say he had also experience. If so it is a pity that he concealed that information from the Appointments Commissioners. The candidate did not lay claim to the two very important things that count in an appointment of that kind, general experience or special experience. If he had that experience that Deputy Ryan says he has, or had, it is a pity that he did not acquaint the Commissioners of that. It is a pity he kept that in the dark. But how were the Commissioners to know that he had that experience that he apparently had, if Deputy Ryan is correct, when he did not acquaint them of it? We had a very eloquent appeal from the Deputy's colleagues. Deputy O'Dowd, I think it was, pointed out the value of experience.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot slate the Appointment Commissioners on the one hand because they do not take experience into account and then you cannot have a Deputy of the same Party slating them for taking experience into account.

There was another case dealing with the appointment of an opthalmologist in Wexford. The Local Appointments Commissioners adopted the recommendation of their Board. They appointed a man who, as an expert, in the opinion of the Board very favourably outshone the other man. The charge is made that they should not have done so, because he was not a local man and would not be able to fulfil the duties. It must be assumed that every man when he goes for a position is willing to undertake all the steps necessary to carry out his part of the bargain. If he does not, there is a remedy. But until he fails to do his duty it is not fair to attack the Appointments Commissioners because they do not reject the opinion of an expert Board.

There is an amendment down to this Bill in the name of Deputy O'Connell. It proposes to hang up the Bill until a Committee of a certain kind has been appointed. I suggest this to Deputy O'Connell for his consideration. There is one thing I am convinced of. The whole attitude of the Labour Party indicates that they are in favour of the present Act, and they are in favour of seeing it work. They think a case has been made for an inquiry of a certain kind into the working of the Act. They have as strong a view of the present Bill —they have stated it as strongly—as the members of this Party have. I suggest to them that that being so there is no excuse for keeping this Bill; they should not attempt to keep a Bill they consider a bad Bill from every point of view, keep that in a state of suspended animation, and give it a kind of artificial life for a few months. The Bill is of such a character in their and in our view that there is only one thing to be done with it, namely, to kill it.

I am not now dealing with Deputy O'Connell's amendment, I am dealing with what Deputy O'Connell and the other Deputies who spoke said in favour of the amendment. I refer to columns 135 and 136 of the Official Reports. Again, I think there is no lack of clearness in what Deputy O'Connell had in mind and intended. He moved his amendment, and said there was a case for inquiry, but he was very careful before the Minister for Finance spoke to state that there were certain limitations to the inquiry he called for. He said: "I want to make it quite clear that I do not mean that this Committee should go into particular appointments that have been made under this Act. I want to make that quite clear. I do not propose that the particular appointments that were made or the methods used by the Local Appointments Commissioners of finding out who should be the best candidate for any particular appointment would be inquired into in any particular way. What I do wish would be to get a Committee together who would find out what the general complaints are with regard to the working of this Act generally and what defects have been shown in its working and in its operation." So far as the Government is concerned they are quite willing to co-operate in the setting up, if the Dáil wishes, of a Committee of that kind that will inquire into operations of the Act, see how the Local Appointments Commissioners work, and see what system they have of dealing with the different classes of appointments that come before them. But Deputy O'Connell was careful to limit himself to rule out certain kinds of inquiry. I hope I am not misinterpreting the Deputy. He did not think a Committee of that kind ought to undertake the work.

The fact that the Minister for Finance felt in duty bound to point out that there were certain types of information that could not or ought not to be called for has been held up as something unclean by the opposite Party. I will take two particular types of cases, and I think from what he said that Deputy O'Connell will agree with me in this, that he would not want these things to be brought into public because if they were, the working of the Act, as a practical Act, would be impossible and the Act would be dead. Let us take it that there is a Board appointed, a Board of eminent men who are asked to act. We will suppose that it is for a professional appointment. They give their opinions very candidly, I presume, on the different candidates. Does anybody suggest that these opinions should be brought to the public, opinions that were given in confidence and on the strict understanding that they were in confidence? Is that the way to secure the future of this or any similar Act? I suggest it is not.

There is another type of case I might mention where it would be disastrous if publicity was given to the information that came to the Appointments Commissioners. It is known that in the case of these appointments, just as in the case of Civil Service appointments, the candidate who has been successful up to a point is asked to nominate references—people who know him and who can give evidence and information as to his character. He nominates them and very often he gets people who, he thinks, will carry weight, men of position in his district. Very often these men give an opinion very candidly and very honestly and perhaps it is not the type of opinion always that the candidate thinks they would give. Is it suggested that a Committee should be appointed with power to make public anything of that kind? I suggest if anything of that kind is done the future working of an Act of this kind, of the present Act, or any amendment of the present Act, would be impossible. There could be no confidence on the part of those called upon to act on boards. There certainly could be no confidence in those asked to give their opinions as to the character of individuals examined by the Civil Service or by the Local Appointments Commissioners. There could be no confidence on the part of these people. The danger is that they would refuse to act or give the information required. In the case of experts they would have to refuse to act.

Therefore, on these considerations, so far as the actual words of Deputy O'Connell's amendment are concerned, he will realise that it does not aim at or achieve the purpose that he has set before himself. So far as he and the Labour Party made the case for the setting up of the Committee to inquire into the general working of the Act and see how the Appointments Commissioners operate, as I say, the Government is quite ready to co-operate with the House in the setting up of a Commission of that kind, but I do oppose, and am bound in honour to oppose, the dragging into public of documents of the kind I have referred to—documents given in confidence to the Local Appointments Commissioners. I do not think it is reasonable to ask it. I know Deputy O'Connell and the Labour Party are keen on the proper working of the Act, and I take it for granted that they do not want anything of the kind. I oppose any such publication of confidential documents of that kind, because it would actually kill the Act. I do not believe the publication of every document in the hands of the Local Appointments Commissioners would show that there was a single case in which political considerations influenced them in rejecting any candidate put forward by the Board. That is the attitude of the Government towards the Bill and towards Deputy O'Connell's amendment.

There is one thing I have learned from the speeches of the Government members on this particular subject and it is that there is a cankering sore on the body politic that has been diagnosed by Deputy Dr. Hennessy and others of the Government Party as a case of septic poisoning due to an overdose of graft. I have learned, much to my surprise, that all the public bodies of this country are absolutely rotten with graft. We had Deputy Gorey and other Deputies giving us figures in relation to sums of money that had been paid out for certain appointments that were given out by the local bodies. When I heard sums of hundreds of pounds having been paid by doctors and others for positions, honestly I began to wonder if I knew anything about the country or not, because I had just a little experience, not much but a little, of a public body some years ago. That was before I started to accumulate grey hairs, and, honestly, I never could see any of this graft spoken of by Deputy Gorey. I begin to realise in the part of the country Deputy Gorey came from—if he were speaking about his own part of the country—that it must have been a gift to have been a member of a public body.

Read what I said again.

Deputy Gorey, I understand, and other Deputies said there was corruption in public bodies and that there were actual sums of money changed hands when men were looking for appointments. These statements were made in this House. I remember once reading a book called "Get Rich Quick Wallingford," about a fellow who kept what are known in financial circles as bucket shops and made fortunes starting companies for carpet-headed tacks, and so on. The local bodies in this country have him beaten to a frazzle. All you have to do is to record your vote for someone and you have £200 or £300 down.

It depends on the size of the board.

The Deputy bears me out in this. He says all you have to do is to record your vote and you lift your money. As the fellow said, "You pay your money and take your choice."

Are you speaking against the Bill?

Not at all. If the Deputy waits until I have finished he will know what I am speaking against. This is the experience of the Deputies who have spoken on the Government benches. If it is, it is not my experience. They have stated that public bodies in this country were a mass of corruption in the way they conducted public affairs. I see some of the Deputies shake their heads. If they want to stand over what they said, let them stand over it. If they deny it, let them.

I did not even speak on the subject.

I see some Deputies shake their heads. You are only one. I am like Diogenes going out with a lantern. Is there an honest man in the country? I have heard speeches repeatedly in this House to the effect that the public bodies were rotten, that they were accepting bribes for public positions, and I want to know from the Government whether that is a fact or not. If it is a fact, then we are all humbugs in this House.

I wonder what public body does Deputy Carney belong to?

I belong to the Dáil.

I mean to say outside the Dáil.

That has nothing to do with this discussion.

If the Deputy has anything to say I will give way.

Anyway, it has nothing to say to the matter before us, and Deputy Carey will have to keep quiet.

A DEPUTY

The public bodies have been dissolved.

The public body I belonged to went out of existence because it happened to belong to a part of Ireland that is no longer a part of Ireland.

A part that is corrupt.

No. A part that was sold as a damn good bargain.

There was corruption when that was sold too.

To proceed to the point, are we to understand that the people who returned representatives of public bodies to power have been rotten, that they have countenanced corruption and dishonesty on all the public boards? Do the Ministers mean to impute to the Irish people that they have closed their eyes to or have participated in flagrant dishonesty for years? If the members of the Government want to tell the Irish people that, I would like them to go out on the platforms and do so. Be honest about it. Why say it here?

On a point of order. Deputy Carney is quoting as if the people who were corrupt in the past have not sat again for the different councils.

That is not a point of order. Deputy Carey will please sit down. Deputy Carey is not to interrupt Deputy Carney again during the course of his speech.

Thanks very much.

I do not know who was making the speech. If the members of the Government wish to tell us here —they have told us already—that those people who returned the local bodies closed their eyes to dishonesty, then of course we have nothing to do but accept it, but I would like the members of the Government to tell the people that they have been dishonest for years. They have been accessories before and after the fact where there was bribery and corruption concerned. They returned these people to power. These people accepted bribes for jobs. There was graft, and they returned the same people to power at the next election. They are accessories before and after the fact. Tell the people they are all dishonest and be finished with it.

The Minister for Education drew an analogy between the Civil Service appointments and those made by the Appointments Commission, but I would like to suggest, humbly, of course, and all that, to the Minister for Education that his analogy is absolutely off the rails, for this reason: Nobody will suggest that a teacher who, when qualifying, takes high marks in an examination makes the best teacher when he comes out to teach. Even a Minister would not suggest that, because he knows well it is not true. The same thing applies to appointments that might be made under the Appointments Commission. It is not always the person with the post-graduate course that Deputy Hennessy talks about who makes the best dispensary doctor, and I am sure Deputy Hennessy would not suggest that for a moment.

I suggest it is a great advantage.

Certainly, but does he always make the best doctor?

There is no reason why he should not.

I suppose the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will tell us that we should not talk to one another across the House. Then again with regard to the Civil Service appointments, I know there are people appointed in the Civil Service to positions in the Government who are sons and daughters of those who were putting us under arrest a few years ago, and who do not even have the saving grace of belonging to the Free State. They come from the Six Counties, from the Northern area. Who knows how they got in there? How do we know that the same thing does not go on with the Appointments Commission——

By competitive examination.

——that there is not a hidden hand that pushes people into the jobs? It is mysterious how those people I refer to get into jobs. I know two or three of them myself, and the same would apply to those appointed by the Appointments Commissioners. That is what Deputy O'Kelly and the rest were talking of when they were talking of things being done in the dark. We know such a lot of things that have been done in the dark that we are afraid of other things that might be done in the dark. Remember you cannot have your loaf and eat it.

You cannot tell the Irish people that they have been guilty all their lives of making it a practice of returning dishonest men to councils and at the same time you cannot say you have produced men with a halo around their heads, men who are experts on the harp, to act here on a Local Appointments Commission. If you have men who are dishonest all over the country where are you going to get men to make these appointments on the Appointments Commission? You cannot get supermen like that, if you have a country full of dishonest men. It is impossible. The Minister made a very significant statement when replying to something that Deputy O'Connell had stated. He said that there was certain information submitted with regard to certain candidates which should not or could not be divulged. There is the hidden hand, the hand that is working in the dark. In the local bodies if a man is appointed his merits or demerits will come out, but in this case you have a system the same as you had in the days of the French Revolution. A lettre de cachet, posted in the night, goes in, and a man is either made or damned. It should not be exposed ! It would not be in the interests of the public good to have that thing exposed! Is there any wonder that people have their doubts as to the bona fides of the Appointments Commission? Is there any wonder that people on these benches have talked about the hidden hand that was working in the dark? You had certain information submitted about certain men, we will say doctors. That information cannot be disclosed. Why not? If a man is an honest man, if his record is absolutely above reproach, like the record of Caesar's wife, that can be put on the boards; there is no doubt about that man's bona fides at all. But if a man has anything to hide, if that man has a bit of a pull, if there is a letter submitted from a second or a third cousin of somebody else, and that man should get the job because he is a relative, then the lettre de cachet, the letter posted in the middle of the night, or the Minister's ear gently got and whispered into. There you are; the appointment is made. If the members of the Government have doubts as to the honesty of the Irish people, remember they do not keep those doubts to themselves. If they did well and good. We all have certain things that we do not tell the world. But they come along and they make a song about corruption in public bodies, they make a song about the dishonesty of the people, and then they expect us calmly to sit down here and take all the findings of the Appointments Commission with a grain of salt. What kind of simpletons do they take us for at all? I know that they have not a very high opinion of our intelligence, if we are to judge from the remarks of those on the benches opposite, but surely they do not think that we are as simple as all that; they do not think that we are going to swallow all that piffle—that is a good word, it came from the benches opposite —about dishonesty and that the Appointments Commissioners are absolutely above reproach, men who cannot do any wrong, supermen who could put their finger on a bunch of twenty men and pick out a winner. It is very simple. You have got two alternatives. Tell the people that they are all rotten, that they are all dishonest, that they are all prepared to vote and vote again for men who are prepared to accept bribes for their votes from somebody who is looking for a job, or tell the people: “We will trust you; you may have faults, there are black sheep in every fold, but on the whole you have not done too badly in the past.” If you want to give them the chance of proving whether they are honest or not why not send them down a panel of names? Why not let them make their own choice? You send them down one name now and they must take it whether they like it or not.

The reason we had all the talk about Deputy Ward during the last week was because Deputy Ward did put up certain concrete cases which could not be answered. The Government members said that we were talking merely in generalities, vaguely about suspicions, about this and that. But when there were concrete cases put forward they were not answered. It is not up to me to defend Deputy Ward, because I reckon he is well able to defend himself, but his name was in the mouth of every Deputy who spoke from the Government Benches. He put up certain concrete cases to the Government which have not been answered and which, I think, they were not in a position to answer, and because we have those examples we are quite as much entitled to doubt the bona fides of the members of the Commission as the members of the Government are entitled to doubt the integrity of the Irish people. It says little for the members of this House, no matter what benches they sit on, that it is this corrupt people of Ireland who returned the corrupt public bodies who have put us in here to represent them. Is it not an insult to the people? Is there any Deputy on the Government Benches, or any Independent Deputy, or any other Deputy who would have the temerity to go on public platforms through the country and tell the people, “You have been corrupt; you are not capable even of appointing a doctor to a local dispensary; you are so dishonest that you are prepared to countenance dishonesty?” Is there any Deputy here who would have the temerity to suggest that? I do not think so. Why not, then, give the local bodies credit for having some honesty or some honour? Why not give them the opportunity of picking out from a panel of doctors the man that they think will suit their own particular district? If local men have applied, let the local men be included on it. Send them down names and give them an opportunity to pick and choose for themselves.

took the Chair.

If you stultify the public boards in this way, there will be no honour or honesty left in them. If you persist in telling them that they are not honest, that they are dishonourable, what can you expect? Auto-suggestion. If it is repeated often enough people will come to believe it. What must people outside the country think if they read the speeches of Deputies opposite? You talk about tourist development. What must tourists think when they hear that every public body in this country is rotten with corruption and is dishonest? What must they think of the people as a whole? Why, they would be afraid to come to the country at all. They would need all their pockets sewn up, for they would expect to find pickpockets at every street corner. If you do not trust the people sufficiently to give them a say in their own local affairs, then, for goodness' sake, be honest about it. Tell them that they are not honest enough to run their local affairs, their county councils, their urban councils. "You cannot do it"—why not be honest and tell them that? If you do not want to tell them that, then give them an opportunity of proving their honesty.

Having listened more or less attentively to a number of speeches in this debate, I am not at all convinced that this Bill improves the original Act in any respect. A great deal has been said about sending down a panel of three names to the local bodies from which to select. If it was originally contended that canvassing among local bodies was improper, this sending down of three names would certainly revive canvassing to as great an extent as ever existed. If the sending down of three names is intended as a sop to the wounded vanity of the local bodies, I cannot for the life of me see how it would be effecttive. If the local councils are not deemed worthy of making a selection themselves, how will the position be improved if the Commissioners, having made a selection and having picked out two or three candidates, say to the local bodies: "We have picked out the best of the candidates. You can fight among yourselves. You can pick and choose among them." I am not in favour of the panel. So far as competitive examinations are concerned, I have been for many years a consistent advocate of them, and the council, of which I had the honour of being a member at a very early stage in its existence, put into operation the principle of competitive examination. I will admit that that system has perhaps its faults, that it does not always happen that the man who comes out on top in an examination has the natural abilities to fill the position, but it appeared to us at that time that something was needed to improve the old system of selecting candidates for public bodies. We felt that the competitive system was, at least, an attempt— only an attempt—in that respect.

Then there was introduced into this Dáil the Local Officers Authorities Bill and the council of which I was a member opposed that Bill, not because we believed that any change in the existing mode of election was unnecessary, but because of the manner in which it was debated in this Dáil and the unworthy and, I might say, absolutely unfounded attacks that were made on the honour and integrity of members of public bodies in this country. I am not going to suggest for a moment that there was never any corruption among public bodies in the Saorstát. The Irish people would not have been human if, once in a way, some little departure from the ordinary code of morality did not occur, but because there were improper appointments made in the country or because a candidate who was regarded as the best was not selected is no proof that there was corruption. Human nature, being what it is, it is not very hard to conceive that a member of a local body who had, perhaps, a friend or relative, was prejudiced in favour of that person when it came to a question of appointment, but prejudice in favour of a person does not necessarily mean corruption. We are apt at times to consider our own geese as swans and it happens sometimes that members of local bodies regard their friends and kindred as swans, but to impute that all public bodies in this country were corrupt was an accusation that we and most public bodies could not stand for. That to my mind was the reason of the opposition to the present Act. I do not see that the Bill now before us improves that Act one iota. It may be said that having opposed that Bill I appear here in sackcloth and ashes, if you like, but I pay willing and unhesitating tribute to the Appointments Commissioners.

So far as my experience of their work goes and after watching it critically, I can say that the appointments made in my constituency and, so far as I know, in the surrounding counties were made on merit alone. If that body continues to operate as it has operated up to the present in the south of Ireland there is no reason to change the Act. I am sorry that in this debate the old accusations that were made in this House during the passing of the original Bill should have been revived. Deputy Gorey thought fit to renew them and to make a deliberate attack on the county which I represent. Not alone did he say that there was corruption there, but he imputed that the corruption in regard to public appointments ran into hundreds and thousands of pounds. I do not know whether I have a more honest face than most people or whether ordinarily people would be corrupt enough to bribe public representatives. I think all this campaign centres around doctors, and doctors must have considered that I have a pretty honest face, because never in my experience of public life have I been interfered with, nobody ever approached me to depart from my duty to my people in one iota, either with a bribe or any other temptation. I believe that what happened in my case happened to the majority of the men with whom I associate, and with whom I am proud to associate. Is it suggested that bribery and corruption prevailed in the council of which I was a member? The previous council was elected in a time of stress on practically a political basis There were appointments, perhaps, made by such councils which I would not have made, but in nearly every case they were the appointments of very poor men—men who had nothing in some cases—but it could never be charged against them that they paid bribes to the extent of £50 or £100. Deputy Gorey was good enough to exempt his own county. I would not go into this matter if his accusations were general, but he slung mud at the Shannon and Limerick and as long as I am a Deputy for Limerick I will not listen to attacks on my county from any Deputy.

There has been far too much mudslinging, not alone amongst Deputies in this House, but amongst people outside. Quotations have been pretty frequent during this debate, and I might perhaps appropriately quote Byron:—"A man must serve his time to every trade save censure," but a little quotation I saw written in a saloon in Western America seems to me more appropriate:—"There is so much good in the worst of us and so much bad in the best of us that it ill becomes any of us to criticise the rest of us." Some of us should assume that spirit and not forget that insinuations carry us nowhere, that if we have no definite charge against a person we should keep our insinuations to our own minds and in our own souls, because insinuation and suspicion are bad companions.

I was very pleased to hear the last speaker in the few remarks he addressed to Deputy Gorey, because if any Deputy from these Benches spoke of Deputy Gorey I am afraid he would have very little chance of finishing his speech. However, I think there is an excuse for Deputy Gorey in this way, that it used to be an old story that corruption at one time occurred in the sale of a dog. Somebody must have told Deputy Gorey this story about the worthless dog. Probably that is how the story originated. Probably that may settle the question between the last speaker and Deputy Gorey. I can understand the attitude of the Government Party on this question, but I fail to understand the attitude of some of the Labour members, including Deputy Anthony. Deputy Anthony spoke here a few days ago, and his speech was like that of his famous ancestor, Mark, of that ilk. He began with a "Friends, Corkmen, and countrymen" oration, and he proceeded to praise this Bill. Then he proceeded to cut it, and when I thought that bad points had convinced him of the uselessness of the Bill, he changed round and again praised it.

I buried Cæsar before that though.

What price did he get for Cæsar? Of course, I suppose the Deputy had a vision of President Cosgrave appearing up the Lee attired as Cleopatra ready to win him from his allegiance to this Bill. I think instead of taking President Cosgrave behind him upon his chariot when he goes through Cork again he will have him beside him.

Quite naturally too.

In a sports model Forde coupé. The Government opposition to this Bill is principally on the grounds of efficiency. They base their opposition to it on the grounds of efficiency and because they are against corruption. We have had too much experience of Government appointments to take much talk from Ministers and from the Government on the question of corruption. We have heard a little too much about people going around with hats in their hands looking for votes. I wonder did many of the Deputies on the opposite side go around with hats in their hands looking for votes. When they wanted to make appointments to the Civic Guards did they make them on the grounds of capacity or was it purely white washing for a general election? I am very glad the last speaker brought home to the Government that a number of members of their own Party do not stand for this wholesale charge as to all the public bodies being corrupt. When you come to the question of efficiency, a Department that in its dealing with the poor is so inefficient as the Department of Local Government and Public Health should not charge public bodies with inefficiency. The Department of Local Government had plenty of opportunities for developing efficiency in many ways. They have a drug list from which doctors down the country are supposed to select their medicines. It was probably written in the Stone Age.

It seems to be too far away for the purposes of this debate.

This is on the efficiency question, and I want to show here how the very efficient people who are to be given control of all appointments——

You will have to drug the Chair to get that in.

I am afraid I would have to be drugged to listen to that particular point.

Do you consider it out of order?

Change the prescription.

Some of the Independent Deputies in dealing with this Bill took very good care that they criticised it here, and at the same time down the country at public boards and at public meetings they professed to be very interested in the Bill, before the Government pointed out that they were opposed to it and before the Government case had been made. One of these Deputies—Deputy Brennan—brought up a case here on an adjournment debate and criticised the Appointments Commission very severely. In Roscommon he took up a certain attitude at the Board of Health. Now I find on looking up the Official Report that Deputy Brennan was one of the people who came here, after his record in Roscommon, and spoke against the Bill in true independent fashion. The only Deputy who made a case against the Bill was Deputy Sir James Craig, but even he admits that his case is weak. He admits that he has been a university examiner for many years and that he cannot generally say that the best men show up in examinations. He went so far as to suggest that even some of the post-graduate courses do not entitle a man to preference in appointments. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn