Committee on Finance. - Local Government (County Administration) Bill, 1950—Committee Stage. – Dáil Éireann (13th Dáil) – Wednesday, 14 Feb 1951

Committee on Finance. - Local Government (County Administration) Bill, 1950—Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Eamon Ó Ciosáin

Ar son an Teachta Donnchadh Uí Briain, táirgím leasú 1:—

I leathanach 4, líne 24, "assistant county officer" a scrios agus "leas-riarthóir contae" a chur ina n-ionad.

Is é cuspóir an leasuithe ná animneacha Gaeilge d'úsáid an oiread agus is féidir. Támaid ag fáil lochta ar aicmí áirithe mar gheall ar gan téarmaí Gaeilge d'úsáid níos mó agus minicí. Maidir linn féin, nach ceart go dtabharfamais an dea-shampla i nithe den tsórt seo, go mór-mhór nuair a thagann Bille ós cóir na Dála.

The purpose of this amendment, as I have pointed out, is to change the name of "assistant county officer" to "leas-riarthóir contae".

Captain Cowan

What would you say if you were addressing him?

Mr. Kissane

"A leas-riarthóir contae" and that would be just as easy as saying "assistant county officer". I do not see what the difficulty would be.

Captain Cowan

It is a pity you could not have thought of something simpler.

Mr. Kissane

If any Deputy can think of a better term than this, nobody will appreciate it more than I will. I think the time has come when we should try to introduce Irish terms as much as possible into matters like this. It has been done before to a certain extent. We have had the title "Córas Iompair Eireann", for instance. We adopted that title in connection with our transport legislation and it has been accepted and used by the general public. If we are in earnest in our endeavour to revive the Irish language and if we want to set a good example to the public, we have an easy way of showing our sincerity and our earnestness by doing things like this. They may be regarded as little things, but they are, nevertheless, an indication of the trend of affairs and they show that we are sincere in our anxiety to revive our native language. I, therefore, commend this amendment to the House.

Captain Cowan

I am in complete agreement with the principle enunciated by Deputy Kissane, but I think the words he used, which seem to me to be a literal translation of the English title, would be somewhat difficult in application. I am not an authority on terms of this kind, but it is conceivable that a term might be suggested which would not be the correct translation into Irish of assistant county officer. Perhaps the House would agree to defer this until we reach the next stage in order to give the experts an opportunity of finding a more suitable term. I can see difficulty in the use of this term. I can see difficulty in its pronunciation. I do not think it is the correct term to use and I would prefer to leave it to the experts to decide what is the correct term.

Mr. Keyes

Probably amendment No. 2 will be taken with this. As I explained on the Second Reading, the title is of a purely temporary character and we hope eventually to base it on the more homely "runaí contae" which is at present used by county secretaries. The measure indicates here that in the transition period, we are going to have a temporary officer. I do not think any better can be done. Its equivalent in Irish, "oifigeach contae", has been utilised here. It is a temporary provision that we hope will pass speedily in some cases. I would suggest to the Deputy that there is no question of getting the Irish language out of it, but it is a question of what Irish should be used. "County officer", as literally translated, is what we are using. We prefer to see this nondescript English title replaced by a corresponding type of Irish title so that it would become popular among the people.

Mr. Kissane

I must say that I am not satisfied with the statement of the Minister in this connection because it is no argument to say that this is just a temporary measure and that we could do nothing about the question of introducing Irish terms until such time as a permanent measure is introduced here. The sooner we start introducing Irish terms into legislation of this kind the better. I think the Minister mentioned that he had in mind the final introduction of the term "runaí contae", "county secretary", but the fact of the Minister having that in mind need not prevent us from adopting the suggestion, because all that need be done afterwards if we have to have permanent legislation, is to change one word in the terminology.

Deputy Cowan suggested that this matter should be left over until the Report Stage to give an opportunity to the language experts to have the question of terminology examined. I think that is not a bad suggestion and I would be prepared to agree, if the Minister would give an undertaking as between now and Report Stage the matter would be submitted to the language experts in the House for the adoption of the proper terminology.

Captain Cowan

I think the Minister ought to agree to that. He will probably find a very euphonious description.

Mr. Keyes

I do not see any justification for departing from a proposal to give the position its Irish equivalent to the English as already suggested in the Bill for the temporary position which will be there, but will not be there for very long. It is a question of what is the more suitable Irish. I suggest "county officer" rather than giving a glorified title. We want the title to be familiarised among the people.

Mr. Allen

The Minister has taken up a very unreasonable attitude in this matter. It should be the function of this House, as far as it can, to popularise Irish terms of important officers either in the State service, or in the local authority service. This officer will, in the future, even when this Bill is passed, be the county administrator. There is no doubt about that. The Minister is just fooling himself in thinking he will not. He knows quite well that this officer will be the county administrator. He will be administering in the absence of a council of a county or of an urban authority the affairs of that council or urban authority. He will be actually responsible for 90 per cent. of the expenditure and for determining 90 per cent. of the expenditure in those particular areas.

I believe that no opportunity should be lost by this House in their legislation in putting a name in Irish and Irish only that will be used in ordinary everyday work. Nobody ever refers to the Taoiseach here as the Prime Minister. He is referred to as the Taoiseach by everybody. It is a name that has been learned by the whole community. He is known as the Taoiseach. The Uachtarán is known as the Uachtarán. The Ceann Comhairle is never called the Chairman of the Dáil. He is known as the Ceann Comhairle. We want to see here that the higher officer in each county will be known by an Irish term and an Irish term only and that there will be no other term used except the Irish term. I think that the House should be unanimous on this matter. I am surprised that everybody is not unanimous on it. I have no doubt that every individual member of this House is anxious to have and to promote the use of Irish terms in every respect. Definitely, we should get a permanent Irish term at this stage. I believe the Minister should have accepted Deputy Cowan's suggestion and agreed to refer this question to the translation officers of the Oireachtas to get a better term than the one here if it is possible. We are not tied to this general term in respect of this officer and we will definitely press if we do not get the Minister's assurance that he will have this matter examined.

Mr. Keyes

All the corresponding titles will be given for every officer. In this particular Bill, there are several officers. What about the other officers? Why particularly select this man. There is an Irish equivalent being given for this officer as well as every other officer in the Bill. What is wrong with "oifigeach contae" as against "runaí contae"? That is the only difference. I suggest that "oifigeach contae" is a term which would pass as would "riarthóir contae", quite apart from Deputy Allen's point with regard to the 90 per cent. If that is at the back of the amendment, it would seem to pose a different proposition entirely and we ought to continue the manager if his argument about 90 per cent. is correct.

I submit that this is a very minor question, as to what is the more suitable equivalent or translation of "county officer" for a temporary and transient position. We suggest that "county officer" translated into Irish is the proper equivalent to use for the time being. It is a matter of "riarthóir" as against "oifigeach" and which is the more suitable. If we are to defer it for the purpose of asking the translation staff to give us some other title—they have probably been consulted already, but I cannot say definitely—we will probably get one of these terms back. It is really a trivial matter and there is nothing fundamental about it. The point of view I hold is that we do not want to entrench this man behind a title which may become popular and familiar. We prefer to wait for the time when we will have "runaí contae" which is in use at present in the case of many county secretaries and will be in use as the term "county officer" passes into oblivion, through retirement or death.

Captain Cowan

I want to save the Minister from making a very serious mistake. What is suggested here may appear to be minor, but there is a very big principle involved. We will have it bruited round the country to-morrow that the Minister is opposed to the use of the Irish language. I want to save the Minister from that blunder. Other people are making blunders and we are getting into trouble because of these blunders. We do not want any more blunders in regard to this matter. There is a very big element in the country who want to see Irish terms used and there is no difficulty in putting the Irish term into this Bill. There is no principle on which it can be opposed and I want the Minister to agree to the suggestion that it be allowed to go to the translation department, to the experts whom we have. They will find a suitable term and put it into the Bill, but let him not make a tragic mistake.

Mr. Kissane

I find it very hard to follow the Minister's line of argument. He said that there are other officers mentioned in this measure, and, if we are to be consistent, these should also be in the Irish language. But let us make a start with the principal officer. The principal officer will be the person in charge of the county. Whether he is called "bainisteor contae" or "riarthóir contae", he is the principal officer and surely we should be prepared to give him his Irish title. He will be the one officer standing out in the affairs of the county and for the Minister to say that it is only a minor matter is carrying the argument a little too far.

The question is whether we are sincere about the revival of the Irish language or not. If we are sincere about its revival, we will start right now adopting the proper Irish terminology. We had a debate here before Christmas on the position of the universities, and several Deputies made references to the lack of provision in these educational institutions for the promotion of the Irish language. We expect everybody else to toe the line in connection with the language and are inclined to do nothing ourselves. Here is an opportunity for us to show an example. Let us show that example and not expect others to put themselves out and expose themselves to difficulties and inconveniences which we are not prepared to face.

I ask the Minister again to reconsider the whole question. It is a question of vital importance in relation to the language. There are many people watching us here from that point of view, and, as Deputy Cowan has said, we will be judged on the basis of what we say and do in this House as regards the revival of the language. It is a serious matter and I ask the Minister to reconsider the position. I ask him to give an undertaking that, between now and Report Stage, if there is any objection to the terminology proposed here, he will consult the translation staff and have the best possible term adopted.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Ba mhaith liom go nglacfaí leis an moladh atá agam annseo maidir leis an leasú seo. Níor thuigeas go mbeadh sé ar súil chomh luath sa trathnóna. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil sé deacair é seo a chur i dtuigsint i nGaeilge don Aire toise ná dtuigeann sé go ró-mhaith í.

My purpose in submitting this and the following amendment —"leas-riarthóir contae" in ionad "assistant county officer" and "riarthóir contae" in ionad "county officer"—was to have the position accepted in regard to these posts that we have generally accepted in regard to the head of the Government being known as Taoiseach, the second in command being known as Tánaiste, the presiding Chairman in the Dáil being known as Ceann Comhairle and his next in command as Leas-Cheann Comhairle. We have Córas Iompair Eireann generally accepted now—the term C.I.E. is probably more often used—and with the progress that Irish is making all over the country, there is no reason why this term should not be accepted and accepted solely for describing these officials in future.

I think the amendment is one that should commend itself to the Minister, to the Government, and to the whole Dáil, irrespective of Party, and I did not expect that there would be any objection to it on the part of the Minister. I am surprised that there is. The words are simple. I took the best advice I could get in regard to the terms I have used before putting down the amendments. I think the words I have selected, "leas-riarthóir", will describe competently in Irish the position that the new official will occupy. I add my voice to that of Deputy Eamon Ó Ciosáin asking the Minister to accept this amendment. I would be satisfied if he were agreeable to examine the term. If he is advised that the term is unsatisfactory and that a better one can be suggested, I will be perfectly satisfied. I ask him to accept the spirit in which the amendment is put down, that it will be a step forward in the use of Irish generally all over the country. He should have no difficulty whatever in accepting this amendment.

Mr. Hickey

I think we should not waste any more time on this matter. We should all be agreed on it, and if a better interpretation exists it can be got. Bord na Móna is a case in point. We are all accustomed to it. I cannot speak Irish, but I fail to see why we should waste so much time over a matter of this kind on which we can all agree.

Mr. Keyes

At the outset, I should like to advise Deputy Cowan that I am doubtful if he is right in saying that I would be misinterpreted. There was never a question of Irish being excluded in this.

Eamon Ó Ciosáin

Would the Minister speak up?

I had the word "oifigeach" in mind, but it is one which does not commend itself to me. It is too like the English word, "officer," and looks anglicised, at any rate. It may be from the Latin; I do not know. The word "riarthóir" is a more fundamentally Irish word. That is the sole reason why I suggested it in the amendment. It is an easy word for anyone to get around, after a few attempts.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Section 2 agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Mr. Keyes

I move amendment No. 3:—

To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919, shall cease to have effect in relation to councils of counties or councils of boroughs other than the council of the Borough of Dún Laoghaire.

In this Bill we are providing the necessary powers in the executive committees of the counties to deal with this particular matter. It does not apply in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire and, therefore, we must retain the powers they have to deal with the rats and mice pest.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Mr. Keyes

I move amendment No. 4:—

To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) The repeal by this section of Section 60 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), and Section 13 of the Local Government Act, 1927 (No. 3 of 1927), shall not affect the operation of those sections as applied by any Act passed before this Act.

This deals with disqualifications. In some of the bodies—for instance, agricultural committees and vocational committees—there are powers of disqualification. It is necessary to pass this amendment, to exempt them from any interference under their own Act in this Act. This County Administration Bill has its own terms for dealing with disqualification of members, but the others are different and have to get the disqualification under this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 124, 128 and 129 are consequential.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7 agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Allen

As we have already had a discussion on the matter of Irish terms, might I suggest to the Minister that on the Report Stage he bring in Irish terms, and Irish terms only, in respect of names of counties, that he make a start right through this Bill and introduce these permanent Irish terms without reference to any alternative English terms?

Captain Cowan

The Minister, I take it, will agree to that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is consequential on what is done on the first section.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 5:—

To delete sub-section (2), lines 9 to 18, and substitute:—

(2) Where the Local Appointments Commissioners recommend a person for appointment as county officer for a county such person shall be deemed to have been appointed as county officer for the county as and from the date of the recommendation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 8 is consequential.

Captain Cowan

The Bill provides:—

"Where—

(a) the Local Appointments Commissioners recommend a person for appointment as county officer for a county, and

(b) the council of a county do not, within three months after the date of the recommendation, appoint such person to be county officer to the county, such person shall be deemed to have been appointed on the expiration of the said three months by the council as county officer for the county."

It has happened in the past that officers have been selected on the recommendation of the Local Appointments Commissioners and for one reason or another have not been appointed by the local authority and there was considerable difficulty, considerable delay and considerable interference with local administration. It is clear that it is the Local Appointments Commissioners who, in fact, make the appointment although theoretically they only make a recommendation. The object of the amendment is to deal with the situation and provide that where the commissioners recommend a person he shall be deemed to be appointed as county officer as from the date of the recommendation. The fact is that the commissioners recommend a person who must, according to the law, be appointed, but the Bill provides that there may be a period of three months during which there can be a lot of propaganda and considerable waste of time. It is just as well that we should face up to the situation now. Where there is a vacancy and a person is recommended by the commissioners he should be deemed to be appointed as from the date of the recommendation. That, in my view, would obviate a lot of the difficulties and delays that have occurred in the past and may occur in the future and it is for that reason that I have put down this amendment.

Mr. Keyes

The object of this amendment is to delete sub-section (2) (b) of Section 9 and to substitute a new section. Many objections will be apparent to the House to this procedure. One is that it gives the appointment to the Local Appointments Commissioners whereas it was and is the intention of the Bill to return appointment and removal from office to the elected representatives on the county council. If this is given effect to the commissioners will make an appointment; the county council meet monthly or bi-monthly and they will find the new county officer installed when they arrive. He is sent down with instructions to take up duty and I think that is discourteous and bad business. The county council should at least have an opportunity to receive the recommendation of the commissioners and by a resolution accept their nominee. If this were accepted nobody would know anything about it until he arrived. Also he would be paid from the moment of appointment but usually he would be working in another position and would have to give notice. The county council are entitled at least to the courtesy and respect of getting a recommendation and having the opportunity to accept it. There is no justification for the amendment; it would make for more confusion than the Deputy thinks and would create awkward situations.

Mr. Childers

As far as this amendment is concerned the Minister has offered two arguments, one of which seems reasonable: that there may be difficulties so far as the nominee is concerned. As far as the county council are concerned they cannot refuse to make the appointment. They are bound to accept whoever is appointed by the commissioners and the passing of a resolution accepting the appointment of the new county officer is purely a formality.

Mr. Keyes

Agreed. But there is an interim period, whereas the amendment says that when the commissioners recommend a person as county officer he shall be deemed to be appointed as from the date of recommendation and he is entitled to take up duty at once. I am not questioning the county council's acceptance of the nomination, but in courtesy and as a matter of business we are bound to give the council an opportunity of meeting and accepting the recommendation.

Mr. Allen

I think that the Minister in (b) of Section 9, sub-section (2), suggested to Deputy Cowan to put down an amendment. This sub-section is unusual, to my mind. The council have no option whatever. I cannot see any reason for paragraph (b). The Minister did not explain why he saw fit to introduce it into the section, as other legislation has made it mandatory on the council to make the appointment. Otherwise, councils would never make some of these appointments, as they would not agree. I do not agree that Deputy Cowan's amendment improves the position, but I suggest that the Minister himself might well delete paragraph (b), as it is unnecessary.

Captain Cowan

Mr. Childers

The Minister has not yet answered my question, which is really an important one. Is sub-section (b) necessary? Why is the Minister inserting in Section 9 clause (b) of sub-section (2)?

That may be so, but I think as time goes on nobody will be appointed as county officer except a person who is in the service of a local authority. Perhaps my amendment might have been better if, instead of using the word "of" in the last line, I used the words "set out in", in other words, that he would be appointed as from the date set out in the recommendation. That would get over all the Minister's difficulties about it. If there was a recommendation to appoint a certain person, the Local Appointments Commissioners would say he was appointed county officer as from a particular date and that would get over the difficulty about his reporting to the council.

That never has arisen. When the position of county medical officer of health was first introduced, a few county councils in the South, as far as I remember, refused to make the appointment at all. It was not a refusal to appoint any individual, but they did not want the office at all. I do not remember whether the Department proceeded by way of mandamus or not in order to get the councils to make the appointments but, as far as I can remember—I am speaking subject to correction—a case has never arisen where a council had to be proceeded against in order to enforce the appointment of a certain individual to a position such as this. I suggest that the matter should be left as it was.

Mr. Sweetman

I think there was a case in Galway. I think Deputy Lydon would confirm that.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

One out of a thousand.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 8 falls with No. 5. I do not know whether Deputy Childers agrees that amendment No. 9 also falls.

Mr. Childers

It is rather a different principle. I am not sure whether this amendment is necessary or not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry. We have not come to it. Would it not be better to wait until we come to amendment No. 9?

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 6:—

In sub-section (3), line 20, to delete "Minister" and substitute "council of the county."

I do not think there can be any objection to this amendment. Whenever the office of a county officer is vacant, the Minister shall appoint a person until an appointment is made. That is what the Bill provides. My amendment is simply to provide that the council of the county will appoint the temporary county officer. I think there could be no objection to that. If there is a vacancy a person is to act for a period while the Local Appointments Commissioners are considering the appointment of a permanent county officer, or for some other reason. There is no reason in the world why that should be referred to the Minister. That should be done by the local authority and I would ask Deputies who are conversant with local government to insist on the right of the local authority to make that kind of appointment for a temporary period. If we are talking about rights of local authorities, democracy, and all that sort of thing, this is the place where we ought to apply it. I ask the House to agree to the amendment.

Mr. Keyes

I do not know if this particular function would confer any great power on the county councils that they would be anxious to receive. The Deputy has suggested that they have not very much power. This would not give them much power and I think anyone who has experience of working on a local council would be anxious to avoid having to make a temporary appointment. There would be the usual influences brought to bear and there would be a tendency, when the man would be appointed, to prolong the temporary appointment unduly, or there might be. Whereas, the amendment that I have put down —amendment No. 7, which I have put down in order to try to meet the point made by the Deputy—provides for the insertion of the words "after consultation with the chairman of the council of the county." Before making the appointment the Minister would consult with the chairman about the appointment of a temporary officer. There is no overriding of the council there. Finally, the Minister has the control and sanction in respect of this office and there is nothing very wrong about that. I am not trying to introduce myself, as the Minister, unduly into this matter but, in the interest of the effectiveness of the Bill, it would be better to have the Minister and chairman consult about this temporary appointment before it is made and thus obviate the general spate of canvassing of the various members that would otherwise be done by candidates and the tendency on the part of the members to prolong the temporary appointment unduly and to postpone a permanent appointment. I do not think there is any intention in the section to interfere with the powers of local authorities. The power that would be conferred on them by Deputy Cowan's amendment is one that would not be desired by the ordinary members who have experience of working on county councils. Amendment No. 7 goes a fair distance to meet Deputy Cowan in providing that the Minister must consult with the chairman of the county council before making a temporary appointment.

Mr. Lydon

I will bring in an amendment of my own on the next stage to meet the Deputy's point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.

Mr. Childers

I move amendment No. 9:—

Before sub-section (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) Within three months of the appointment of a county officer under sub-section (3) of this section the council of the county shall proceed to apply to the Local Appointments Commission for the appointment of a county officer.

I am moving this amendment just in case it is necessary to ensure that there will not be any delay on the part of the particular county council proceeding to apply for the appointment of a county officer when a vacancy takes place and after the temporary officer is appointed. It may be that under existing legislation there can be no delay. I put down the amendment with the same object as Deputy Cowan —to make sure that everything runs smoothly and quickly with regard to these appointments.

Mr. Keyes

This amendment is unnecessary because the point is covered by the existing law—Section 6 (2) of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926. That provides that where a local authority does not, within three months after an office becomes vacant or is created, either request the commissioners to recommend a person for appointment or make an appointment in accordance with the Act, the Minister may request the commissioners to recommend a person for appointment to the vacant office. That covers the point I think, and it is unnecessary to have it introduced in the Bill. They do not actually appoint; they recommend for appointment.

Captain Cowan

Is Deputy Childers satisfied?

Mr. Childers

I am satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 12 and 21 might be taken in conjunction with amendment No. 10. The same principle is involved but separate decisions, if necessary, could be taken.

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 10:—

To delete sub-section (5).

Sub-section (5) states:—

"Save as otherwise expressly provided thereby, the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to the County of Dublin and, in lieu thereof, it is hereby enacted that every person who is duly appointed (whether permanently or temporarily) to the office of Dublin City Manager, shall by virtue of this sub-section, stand appointed (permanently or temporarily, as the case may require) to the office of Dublin County Officer."

An Ceann Comhairle

The reason I suggested that the other two amendments, Nos. 12 and 21, might be debated on this amendment is that they also deal with Dublin.

Captain Cowan

Yes. I want to ask the Minister what is the justification for this particular sub-section which I want to delete.

Mr. Keyes

That is a rather novel way of getting at it—going in reverse. Under the County Management Act, 1940, the Dublin City Manager was also made County Manager for Dublin County. The Dublin County Council was dissolved in 1941 and a commissioner was acting in place of the council. In June, 1942, that is two months before the 1940 Act came into operation, the County Management (Amendment) Act, 1942, was passed. This provided that the commissioner for the County of Dublin shall, during the suspension of the council perform the executive—that is the managerial —functions of the council as well as the reserved functions. The Dublin Board of Assistance was dissolved in 1942 and commissioners were also appointed, who similarly discharged the executive functions of that body. The Dublin County Council remained dissolved until 1948; when it was reconstituted the Dublin City Manager became County Manager for Dublin County.

The Local Government (Temporary) Act, 1948, dealt with the position arising out of the re-constitution of the Dublin Board of Assistance. It provided that the person who was commissioner should, under the title of chief executive officer, discharge the executive functions of the board. The position in Dublin City and County in 1948 was that the Dublin City Manager was county manager and he had the assistance of the assistant city manager who acted as borough manager for Dún Laoghaire and as manager for Grangegorman. The managerial functions of the Dublin Board of Assistance were being performed by the chief executive officer of that board. The need to concentrate and co-ordinate the housing efforts of the four housing authorities in Dublin City and County and to get the housing drive in these areas under way led in 1948 to the creation of a new job of housing director. This post was filled by transferring the assistant city manager, Mr. O'Mahoney, from Dún Laoghaire and Grangegorman, and appointing Mr. Keane, deputy city manager, Dublin Corporation, as assistant city and county manager in place of Mr. O'Mahoney. The success of the experiment of having one assistant manager for housing clearly demonstrated the value of the functional approach in the discharge of the business of the city and county. The experiment was carried a step further by appointing Mr. Keane as temporary assistant manager in charge of the health services of the city and county and by appointing the secretary of the Dublin County Council as temporary manager to discharge certain functions other than housing and health and some other functions reserved by the city manager to himself.

This Bill will repeal the Local Government (Dublin) (Temporary) Act, 1948, and the chief executive officer of the Dublin Board of Assistance will become an assistant city manager. The administration of Dublin City and County will then be fully integrated and it is intended that generally each of the assistants shall, under the city manager, discharge a block of functions in the whole area. This will make for more efficient administration. Administration on a functional basis in Dublin City and County is now all the more necessary since the setting up of separate Departments of Health and Social Welfare. I am satisfied that if the system of local government is to function efficiently in the Dublin area and to cater in a relatively small area for about 20 per cent. of the country's population then there must be an integration of administration such as is envisaged in this Bill. The point is to have all these matters in a single Bill. The county area is very small, while the metropolitan area is very big, and the present arrangement has been working very satisfactorily.

Captain Cowan

When I put down these amendments I considered that the responsibilities of the Dublin City Manager were really too many. The city manager has an enormous job as Manager of the City of Dublin. I must say that he carries out his duties exceptionally well; there is no doubt whatever about that, but I do think that if you have a Dublin County Council, that county council should have its own county officer and let the city be managed by the city manager and as many assistant managers as are necessary. You have the position at present that the city manager is Manager of Dublin City, Manager of Dublin County, Manager of Dún Laoghaire Borough and he has also responsibilities in connection with Grangegorman, the Dublin Board of Assistance and other functions of that nature. No one individual can carry all these responsibilities and I was anxious that, when this Bill was passed, Dublin County could claim some independence and be considered a complete county with its own county officer just the same as any other county. At the moment it has not its own county officer. I think it would make for better administration if Dublin County had its own county manager. For that reason, I put down these amendments to delete the three sub-sections which deal in a different way with Dublin County than with any other county. I am sorry that, apparently, there is nobody in the House who is a member of the Dublin County Council, but, if there was, I think he would agree with me that it is desirable that Dublin County Council should have its own county officer the same as any other council.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy MacEntee got into this discussion to say a few offensive things about me and about Partition. I do not know what good that is to Deputy MacEntee. Whether he can sleep better after having made an observation like that, I do not know. I am only concerned to have this Bill improved as best we can, and I am very sorry that we have not some member of the Dublin County Council here to talk of the system from his experience. The system does not lead to any co-ordination. It imposes unnecessary work on the Dublin County Manager and we have reached a position now that when the Dublin County Manager goes from the City Hall to Parnell Square he changes his title on the way. He is city manager in the City Hall and until he reaches the county council headquarters in Parnell Square and then he becomes county officer. From Deputy MacEntee's point of view there may be something wonderful to be said for that, but in actual fact there is no co-ordination, except theoretical co-ordination by this arrangement. The Dublin City Manager as county manager deals with county affairs only and not with city affairs. These two things are kept just as much apart as they always were. When he moves up to Parnell Square he has the county council staff to advise him on county council matters such as the housing of people in Coolock or the provision of water or sewerage in Balbriggan and he deals with them. He has to forget everything about the city when in the county council office in Parnell Square, and yet I am told that is co-ordination.

I put down these amendments deliberately, having thought the matter over, believing that the city manager is overworked, that there is an enormous amount of work in Dublin City for the city manager and that there is a big amount of work, if we want county officers at all, that can be done in the County Dublin by a county officer and I say to the Minister that he should provide a county officer for the County Dublin. It is for that purpose that I have put down these amendments— not for that precise purpose, because that purpose would not be achieved by the amendments. The amendments only relate in the first instance to temporary appointments. That is as far as Section 9 (5) is concerned which deals with temporary appointments when there is a vacancy. Sub-section (4) of Section 10 deals with the first county officers and it provides that the City Manager of Dublin shall be the first county officer for the County Dublin.

I think it is time that we gave County Dublin a county officer of its own and, if we did, he would have work enough to do and he would relieve the Dublin City Manager of the enormous burden of responsibility placed upon him. No one individual can do all the work that the Dublin City Manager is called upon to do as Manager of Dublin, Manager of County Dublin and Manager of the Borough of Dún Laoghaire. If he can do all that work efficiently, and apparently he is doing all that enormous amount of work efficiently, then we could have one county officer to do the duties of about ten counties elsewhere.

Mr. Childers

I think Deputy Cowan has confused the question of whether there are enough executive officers for Dublin City with the question of co-ordination between the two authorities. Wherever the physical boundary of Dublin City meets that of the Dublin County Council and wherever the legal boundary, which is a very different thing, in certain circumstances meets it, there are tremendous co-ordination problems. Deputy MacEntee referred to the necessity for having one executive officer who would understand the problems of the two areas. In regard to sewerage, water and every other aspect of local administration it is absolutely essential at the present time to have such a person if there is to be efficiency in administration. As the Minister knows, there are a number of vital fundamental matters still arising for decision by him in relation to an inquiry instituted into the whole question of Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council administration, fundamental matters for his decision based on evidence which is already becoming out-of-date owing to the fact that Dublin City is spreading so quickly. The whole question of how far Dublin County Council can be detached from Dublin Corporation in regard to administration was involved in that inquiry. I think it is most irresponsible to suggest that because the Dublin City Manager may be overworked there should not still be one person who will have a general view of the administration of the two areas.

So far as the observations made by Deputy Cowan in regard to the work of the councils are concerned, it would be very difficult for the Dublin County Council and the Dublin City Council to start doing the work of determining the matters which require co-ordination. A lot of what Deputy Cowan said underlies the whole psychology in connection with the Bill. There are a great many sections in the Bill which are trying to make civil servants of the members of local authorities. It would be ridiculous to suppose that it would be possible very often for members of the Dublin County Council or the Dublin City Council to sit and debate one way or another on the complicated matters that arise in connection with the co-ordination of the two services. The most they can do is to determine general principles and to avoid as far as possible the creation of anomalies or scandals and to remedy grievances. The idea that a manager can go from one body to another and listen to a whole series of detailed grievances is to my mind fantastic.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Cowan's speech might have passed unanswered if in the last couple of minutes he had not shown that he did not understand his own amendment. He said that amendment No. 10, which we are discussing with amendments Nos. 11 and 12, related only to temporary officers. Amendment No. 10 is to delete sub-section (5) of Section 9. Let us see what sub-section (5) says. I do not know whether Deputy Cowan bothered to read it. Let me read it for him:—

"Save as otherwise expressly provided thereby, the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to the County of Dublin and, in lieu thereof, it is hereby enacted that every person who is duly appointed (whether permanently or temporarily) to the office of Dublin City Manager shall, by virtue of this sub-section, stand appointed (permanently or temporarily, as the case may require) to the office of Dublin County Officer."

Deputy Cowan, who proposes to delete that sub-section without any reservation or qualification whatever, says that his amendment is intended to apply only to temporary appointments. Is it not absurd that a Deputy who does not know what he intends to do by an amendment, should put it down on the Order Paper? That is precisely the position in which the House finds itself, thanks to Deputy Cowan. I do not want to traverse the ground already covered by Deputy Childers. I am glad, in order that we may understand the working of Deputy Cowan's mind, that my intervention in the debate evoked from him some reasons in support of this amendment. The only reason which he did adduce was that there was a Dublin City Council, of which he is a member, dealing with problems relating to Dublin and dealing only with those problems within the narrow confines of the Dublin City boundaries, and that outside Dublin we had the Dublin County Council dealing similarly, with narrow vision, with the problems of Dublin County. He said that one body was concerned only with its own domestic problems and the other body was similarly concerned with the problems peculiar to it. The trouble is that these problems overlap.

Captain Cowan

They do not.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy has admitted it. He has talked about the water supply for years. County Dublin was trying to conceive a scheme for the supply of water to North County Dublin and could not do it unless it could come to some arrangement with the Dublin Corporation. Whatever we may say about the burdens which are undoubtedly imposed upon the individual who has to fill the post at one and the same time of Dublin City Manager and Dublin County Officer, at least he has this advantage over the members of the Dublin County Council and even omniscient members of the Dublin Corporation like Deputy Cowan, that he knows both problems and when acting in his capacity as Dublin City Manager, advising to the best of his ability the members of Dublin Corporation, at least he will be aware of the problems with which the members of the Dublin County Council have to deal, and when, conversely, he is dealing with Dublin County affairs, he will be aware how these affairs entrench upon the Corporation of the City of Dublin.

Surely a person of his competence and knowledge will not act, as apparently Deputy Cowan seems to think would be the ideal situation, as if both these councils were in closed compartments. The advantage in having one person as Dublin City Manager and Dublin County Officer is that he has full knowledge of both problems and he can co-ordinate them. He has power to recommend to his council or corporation a scheme which will co-ordinate the services of Dublin City and County and so bring about, by reason of that co-ordination, greater efficiency in the services which are common to both the city and the county.

I think that is the only alternative to setting up one body which would be responsible for local government in Dublin City and County. I think it would be undesirable to have the affairs of these two separate administrative areas administered by one local authority. If we are to have separate local authorities for Dublin City, for the County Borough of Dún Laoghaire and for the County of Dublin, then we must have some co-ordinating link. I cannot see any better co-ordinating link than that which was provided in the County Management Act and which is being continued in the present Bill.

Captain Cowan

The Deputy mentioned officers and staff in the county council. That is correct. They are all working in coordinated fashion under one head, and, having regard to the contiguity of the metropolis to the small county of Dublin, it would be unthinkable to upset the arrangement. It would be a disadvantageous and retrograde step if we were to attempt to do that, and I suggest the Deputy should leave the Bill as it is.

Captain Cowan

I am sorry the Minister does not see the point involved. We have a very excellent housing director in Dublin City, Mr. O'Mahoney, who is also housing director for the County of Dublin. The city manager is also county manager, and one of them is here to-day and there to-morrow, out to Dún Laoghaire and back again, When the housing director is dealing with his contracts for sites and so on in the City of Dublin, he devotes all the time he can spare to it. When he has finished with that, he goes up to the county council and has to change his functions completely. I know that he works as many as 16 hours on some days. There is no co-ordination between the two bodies. That is what I wanted the Minister to understand, whether he accepts the amendment or not. When Dr. Hernon is acting as county manager of Dublin County, he is cribbed, cabined and confined as county manager, and can carry out no other functions. Similarly, when he is acting as city manager, he can carry out no other duties. We are in the fortunate position that in Dr. Hernon, Mr. O'Mahoney, Mr. Keane and others we have excellent officials. I am sure the Minister will find, and find very soon, that it would be a more satisfactory arrangement if we had a county officer in Dublin County who would deal with the portion Dr. Hernon deals with and also the portion Mr. O'Mahoney deals with, leaving us in the city—where we have such an enormous population and such tremendous responsibilities—with the full services of these two, the city manager and assistant city manager.

I am sorry that people cannot see the facts, but I cannot do more than try to make them be seen. The Minister is quite right when he says it is working satisfactorily. That is so because of the competence and efficiency of the people concerned, because they are working long hours, as many as 16 a day. That is why it is satisfactory. It is not satisfactory because the system is satisfactory but because the particular officials are excellent men. This is like many other matters I advocate: it takes a long time for ordinary men to understand them. Perhaps in a year or two we will have the Minister introducing the particular amendment I am trying to get him to accept to-night and when he does that I am sure that his principal supporter will be Deputy MacEntee.

Mr. MacEntee

It is a great pity that all Deputies are not gifted with the vivid imagination of Deputy Cowan. We have listened to him while he detailed at length how the city manager acted as city manager and how he dealt with the business of the Dublin County Council. I am not aware that Deputy Cowan has been a sort of "doppelgänger" of the person who occupies the dual post of Dublin County Manager and Dublin City Manager. I do not know if the Deputy has had the privilege of sitting upon that gentleman's shoulder when he was sitting in the Dublin City Hall or when he was exercising his functions in Parnell Square. In fact, I doubt very much whether Deputy Cowan was there on any occasion when the Dublin City Manager was in the City Hall acting as city manager or in the Dublin County Council offices in Parnell Square acting as Dublin County Manager. I doubt whether Deputy Cowan will now aver that he was. So all this argument is merely a figment of Deputy Cowan's fertile imagination and there is no substance whatever in it.

The only realistic argument I heard the Deputy advance in support of his amendment was that the Dublin City Manager would write a letter to the Dublin County Manager which would be received by the gentleman who had written it, when he was acting in his capacity as county manager. The change that Deputy Cowan proposes to make is that the letter will be written by one individual in the City Hall and received by a different individual in Parnell Square.

Captain Cowan

Precisely.

Mr. MacEntee

So we shall have two individuals dealing with the one letter, instead of one individual dealing with the same problem. We shall have two individuals dealing with one problem, instead of one. That will be the practical effect of the amendment. Yet it is put up here solemnly as if it were a great epoch-making discovery in the realm of local administration and this gentleman, with all the magnamania which characterises, I understand, Uncle Joe and which used to characterise the late German Fuehrer, now comes along to tell us that sometime, in two, three or four years, all the world will accept the principle which he is advocating now and look up to him with admiration. I will not be one of his adorers.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Captain Cowan

Say: "postponed for three years."

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may re-table it on the next Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 9 agreed to.

Let us not, because I have introduced this personal note, get away from what Deputy Cowan proposes to do. If he can square that with the democratic principles that were embodied in The Vanguard he can do what mathematicians and eminent minds have sought to do for generations, that is to say, he can square the circle.

Captain Cowan

I looked at this Bill as a whole and it provides that where there is a county manager he becomes county officer for the county when the Bill is passed. Where you have the position that you have in three or four cases and you have one county manager for two counties, the Bill provides that the Minister will consult with the councils and appoint him county officer of one or other of the two counties. It is not a case of sending him anywhere. Let us see what may happen: the County Management Act was passed in 1940 and a man may have been county manager for ten years of two counties and carrying out his functions there. Like any other man he may have a home and family and may have a family attending school. To send that man from the county in which he lives, as can be done by the Minister, to another county may have very serious repercussions on him and on his family life. It may mean that he must dispose of the home he has built up and make alterations in the education of his children. I think that these are material and important matters and if a man has been a good official as manager of two counties then the least he ought to get under this Bill is the right to say in which county he prefers to stop. I am prepared to argue with anyone that that conflicts in no way with the principles of democracy. I do not think that he should be a chattel to be ordered from one county to another by the Minister. The Minister has no right to do that. There has been a lot of talk about the homes of the people and the fundamental right of individuals, but in this amendment I am trying to preserve the homes and fundamental right of individuals. I am going to press this amendment and I would ask the Minister to accept it.

Mr. Allen

I think that it will be agreed that while Deputy Cowan started as super-democratically as we would all like, he turned into rather a dictator in this debate. The object of the Bill as it was introduced, we were told by the Minister, was to give more power to local authorities.

I am surprised that Deputy Cowan should be the first member of the House to set out to restrict the rights of local authorities. He proposes to delete certain words but, for some extraordinary reason he wants to delete the words "consult the councils of the counties." I am surprised that Deputy Cowan will not allow the councils of the counties, where this manager or county officer has been functioning, to be consulted. I doubt if Deputy Cowan fully considered this amendment before he put it down or fully understood its meaning. We should like to see the councils of the counties consulted by the Minister before he makes the county officer or county manager for either one of the counties. We should like the Minister to consult both counties in respect of such an officer. The Minister is also going to consult the person, who will be involved. He is not going to act as a dictator in this respect. He is going to consult the person, whose future he is determining as to which county he should serve in. The local authorities under and with whom he served will be consulted. I think there is nothing undemocratic in that procedure. However, there is a most undemocratic viewpoint expressed in Deputy Cowan's amendment or proposed amendment. I believe the Deputy would be wise, before this debate goes any further, and before the undemocratic nature of this amendment is exposed any further, to withdraw it.

Captain Cowan

Sections 10 and 11 put and agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Mr. Lydon

I move amendment No. 14:—

Before Section 12 to insert a new section as follows:—

The Minister may by order (after consultation with the local authority concerned) create the office of city officer in respect of the council of a borough, and the duties and functions of such city officer shall be the same as the duties and functions of a county officer as defined in this Act.

The purpose of this new section is to permit borough councils to have a city officer of their own, to carry out the executive functions now carried out by the county managers. As many people know, there are some large urban areas which are not county boroughs but which are very close to that position in population and valuation and which have immense difficulties which require the attention of a whole-time officer who would carry out the executive functions of that area. Such is the case, for example, in Galway, which led me to put down this amendment. There you have a large growing city and also a very large county. It has very many difficult local problems, which require the attention of a full-time officer. The present system which allows that work to be done by the county manager, who is an official of the county council, is not, in my opinion, satisfactory. I think anyone would agree that in a large county like that it is nearly impossible for one individual to give sufficient attention to the problems that arise. The county manager has to look after the county council, Ballinasloe Mental Hospital, the Central Hospital, Loughrea Children's Home, Ballinasloe Urban Council, Tuam and Loughrea Town Commissioners. It is a physical impossibility for that person to give attention to a town like Galway when he has so many other particular duties on his hands.

There is one very important feature of the whole matter. As many people must know, the relationship that exists between urban councils, borough councils and county councils is sometimes rather difficult because borough councils contribute to the county-at-large charges, not on services rendered but on a fractional basis which is the valuation of the county health district divided by the borough valuation. I am sure the Minister knows that there are many urban areas and borough areas which find this a great burden. They have to pay on the gross valuation, not on the collectable valuation.

Take a manager for both bodies. Every action of the manager for the county council becomes a burden on the borough council of which he is also manager. The result is that when the borough council meets to discuss matters which are inter-related between the borough council and the county council, they have to deal with a manager who is also acting for the county council and it is practically impossible for him, unless he is a person of split mind, to dissociate himself from his main employers, the county council. I believe that many of the urban areas, and particularly the borough areas, could be more efficiently run if they had an officer of their own carrying out these executive functions.

I do not want to delay the House on this matter, but I think the Minister will agree, particularly as regards the large borough areas, in view of the fact that the relations sometimes— more especially the financial relations between the counties and boroughs— are of a rather difficult nature, that it would be better if the borough council had a particular officer advising them so that they will be better protected and they will get better value for their money and that the county council contribution will be as they think fit.

Mr. Keyes

This proposal is cutting right across the general principle of the Bill, which is really an effort at integration. We were dealing earlier with the Dublin County Council and the city manager and this matter was then argued. This proposal is to set up a city officer, evidently with the same powers as the county officer. The county manager is the officer for the county and all the institutions therein. The county officer will have the same functions and if you set up a city officer in the boroughs I do not believe you will make for harmonious working. I think you will be making for friction rather than for integration.

The case made for the boroughs could equally be made for some provincial towns that have not become boroughs. The boroughs are Dún Laoghaire, with a population of 44,674; Galway, 20,370; Drogheda, 15,715; Sligo, 12,920; Wexford, 12,296; Kilkenny, 10,291, and Clonmel, 9,857. There are certain urban districts with a pretty high population, such as Dundalk, 18,562; Bray, 11,085, and Tralee, 9,990. The case that can be made, if there is a case made, for the appointment of a city officer, could also be made for those towns with such a big population, with a population quite as big and perhaps bigger than in some of the boroughs.

I do not see what necessity there is for the appointment of a city officer. The county officer will be there. If he is overloaded there is provision made so that we can appoint an assistant county officer. This particular proposal will not, in my opinion, make for harmonious working but will lead inevitably to friction. I do not see that there is any point to be met at all. If there is too much work for the county officer an assistant county officer can be appointed. I do not see the need for a city officer who would not be a help but who would be rather the reverse. They would be working against rather than with each other. It could not be confined to the boroughs and for that reason you would ultimately have additional costs imposed on the ratepayers. These officers would be appointed on top of such officials as town clerks, and that will lead to more burdens on the rates. I think the Deputy ought not to press this amendment because his point is already sufficiently covered.

Mr. Lydon

There is a big difference between what I am trying to get at and the point in the discussion about the Dublin City Manager and the Dublin County Council. They are autonomous bodies; they are not inter-contributing. The difficulty about most large urban areas is that they have to contribute to the county council on a purely fractional basis and at times there is a tremendous amount of disagreement as between the two bodies and the one manager.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 12 agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Mr. Keyes

I move amendment No. 15:—

To insert ", at the request of the council of the county," before "by" in sub-section (3), page 8, line 51, before "one" in sub-section (4), line 2 and before "by" in sub-section (5), line 4 and to delete sub-section (7).

The proposal in the amendment is that, at the request of the council of the county, the Minister may, by Order, increase the number of assistant county officers for the County of Cork, create one or more than one office of assistant county officer of the county, and amend or revoke an Order. There are some other amendments covering that point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 15 meets the point of amendments Nos. 16, 18 and 19.

Mr. Childers

As the Minister knows, there is a whole mass of legislation by which it is left to the Minister finally to provide equally good standards in respect of administration throughout the country. He has any number of Acts by which he can make quite sure that there is equally good administration. A whole hierarchy of officers and minor officers is provided, all with the object of having a high standard maintained. The suggestion originally was that the Minister shall have the final word. That is not with the view of preventing the Cork County Council or any other body from deciding the number of its officers, but with the view of maintaining a good and proper standard.

It seems to me that the Minister's amendment is a little bit illogical, because he can provide by other Acts for officers of every kind, arrange for their numbers and make regulations in regard to their appointment. There is a whole series of Acts going back some 20 years on that subject. I think, as local authorities are ultimately bodies delegated to do their work by the Oireachtas, the Minister should have the final say as to the preservation of a standard of administration. It is not always possible to imagine that a particular authority would be right in its decision. It might think it is right, but from the point of view of preserving a good standard I am not sure that the Minister ought not to have the final say.

The suggestion here is that, after consultation with the council of the county, he could appoint assistant county officers for Cork, and for other counties. I have no objection to any method adopted by the Minister to ensure that every county council would be entitled to express its point of view, but if a county council has to have its a county medical officer of health or other officers, I think the Minister should have the final word.

Mr. Sweetman

One of the differences between this Bill and the procedure which operated under Deputy Childers before is that, under sub-section 2 of Section 29, the council are now given a chance of determining whether they want an increased number of permanent officers. Before this, and even as the law now stands, the situation was that the council had no say in the matter. As I say, under sub-section 2 of Section 29, the council are now given the absolute power of determining whether there is to be an increase in the number of permanent officers. The amendment which the Minister has introduced in this section is merely bringing the position of additional county officer into line with the procedure the Minister has laid down in sub-section 2 of Section 29, under which the county officer cannot ask the Minister to increase the number of permanent officers without the permission of the council. It seems to me that, far from attacking this proposal as being illogical, the Deputy should give the Minister credit for correcting one of the worst tendencies of the present system which was to give us, in local authorities, too many officers and too much approach to Government Department instead of more work being done across the table by the various officers concerned.

Captain Cowan

I am glad the Minister has brought in this amendment which covers the points I intended to raise on amendments Nos. 16, 18 and 19.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 16 not moved.

Mr. Keyes

I move amendment No. 17:—

In sub-section (4), line 3, to delete "of" where it occurs secondly and substitute "for."

This is a purely drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.

Section 14 agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 22:—

In sub-section (1), lines 38 and 39, to delete "the Minister may, by order made after consultation with the council of the county" and substitute "the council of the county shall by order."

There are two other amendments, amendments Nos. 23 and 26, which deal with the same principle as this amendment. I think the Minister should accept this amendment as he has already agreed to the principle in the amendment accepted in regard to the appointment of temporary county officers to fill a vacancy. This section deals with the transfer of functions to a county secretary. It states:—

"Where the office of county officer for a county is vacant at the commencement of this part of this Act by reason of no person becoming appointed to the office by virtue of Section 10 of this Act, or where the office of county officer for a county becomes vacant after such commencement, the Minister may, by order made after consultation with the council of the county, transfer the functions of the county officer to the county secretary...."

The Minister has already agreed to the principle of the amendment which I moved, that where there is to be a temporary appointment, the council may make the temporary appointment and it will be sanctioned by the Minister. The very same principle arises here. The amendment proposes to delete the words "the Minister may, by Order made after consultation with the council of the county" and to substitute the words "the council of the county shall by Order". In other words, there is the principle already accepted by the Minister, that temporary appointments will be made by the council and not by the Minister. Obviously, of course, they must be sanctioned by the Minister.

Mr. Sweetman

Is there any significance in the fact that the Deputy makes use of the word "shall" in his amendment, as compared, with the word "may" in the Bill? Does the Deputy intend any difference?

Captain Cowan

I do not think it matters very much.

Mr. Keyes

The purpose of this amendment is to amend Section 16 (1) by providing that the council of the county and not the Minister shall make an order transferring the functions of the county officer for the county to the county secretary. The amendment is objectionable for a variety of reasons. It puts the members of the county council in the invidious position of being open to canvassing on behalf of a county secretary or an assistant county officer who, when the post of county officer becomes vacant, wants to get the post. It is better that the Minister should be in a position to decide the issue as to whether or not the county secretary should be appointed county officer. An Order made under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 15 is equivalent to an Order for the amalgamation of the offices of county secretary and county officer. Provisions enabling amalgamation of offices to be made were included in the 1941 Local Government Act and were repeated, with some slight amendments, in the 1946 Act. These provisions in the 1946 Act, Section 36, give the power to amalgamate offices to the Minister. The effect of the amendments proposed by the Deputy would be to give the county council power to amalgamate the offices of county officer and county secretary while the Minister would have power to amalgamate all other offices. The section provides for consultation with the county council. If the county council holds strong views they will not be slow in conveying them to the Minister. The Minister cannot disregard the views of the county council, except in face of very compelling reasons.

The point is that consultation should take place between the Minister and the county council when any proposal of this kind is contemplated. That would be more effective, seeing that the Minister has responsibilities for amalgamation in regard to other offices. There may be contenders for the offices and it would be much better to have the matter decided in the manner outlined in the section than under the proposal of the Deputy. It is being done in consultation all the time with the county council. There is no infliction of the Minister on top of them.

Captain Cowan

I should have liked to have the view of some other Deputies on this section.

Mr. Keyes

I should say that, normally, the position would be filled by the Local Appointments Commission. That is the normal position except in the initial stages.

Captain Cowan

I just want to make my mind clear on this point. It is intended gradually to abolish county officers and to have the functions carried out by the county secretary. Where the office of county officer is vacant at the commencement of this part of this Act, the Minister may transfer the functions to the county secretary. In view of what I have proposed already, and what the Minister has agreed to, I think that what he ought to agree to here is that the council may transfer those functions if there is a vacancy. I am not worried at all about the question of a canvass because I think we have agreed that there will be no improper canvass in regard to matters of this kind under our local authorities as now constructed.

Will the Minister say if this section is intended to be part of the machinery for the abolition of the county officers? In other words, is it part of the machinery to change county officers into county secretaries under this particular section? I think once you have that principle established, that is what is to be done. I think that the councils themselves ought to do it. I can see that there will be a difficulty in a case where there is an assistant county officer. I do not know of many counties in which you will have an assistant county officer. There may be one or two. The machinery that is going to operate, as I understand it is, that once a county officer dies, resigns or retires and there is a county secretary there, to transfer the functions to him. That is what is intended. Therefore you may not have any more county officers. In such cases, I think the councils should make the order themselves. That is why I deliberately put in the word "shall" into the amendment.

Mr. T. Walsh

I take it that this section deals with group counties such as Kilkenny-Waterford and Carlow-Kildare, where you have no county officer in existence at the moment. In these cases, will it follow automatically that the county secretary will become the county officer when the present county manager elects to go to another county?

Mr. Corish

He may be appointed. The Minister will consult with the members of the council.

Mr. Childers

I think the Minister could meet Deputy Cowan by telling us a lot more about Section 15. It is a very fundamental section of the Bill. I should like to know, for instance, in what circumstance the Appointments Commission will deal with these vacancies. The Minister, I think, said that in certain cases the Appointments Commission will appoint the county secretary. In certain other cases it would appear that they are to be automatically appointed. I think, in order to clear up the matter, it would be well if the Minister would give us some more information on the section. If we had that information I think we would be able to proceed further with Deputy Cowan's amendment.

Mr. Keyes

The purpose of Section 15 is to enable the offices of county officer and county secretary to be amalgamated under the latter title according as vacancies arise. In the case of existing managers and county secretaries the amalgamation will not take place without their consent. The local authority will be consulted in each case before an amalgamation takes place.

The first five sub-sections of this section deal with the case where the office of county officer is vacant at the commencement of this part of the Act. They enable the duties of county officer in certain circumstances to be transferred to the county secretary or an assistant county officer. The simple case will be in counties which have no assistant county officer. If the county secretary was appointed before the commencement of this part of the Act, his consent will have to be obtained before amalgamation takes place. If the county secretary was appointed after the commencement of this part of the Act, it will not be necessary to obtain his consent. If both posts are vacant at the commencement, then the Minister can make an Order under sub-section (1) amalgamating the posts of county officer and county secretary, and the new appointee will hold both offices under the title of county secretary.

In counties where there are, say, two assistant county officers and a county secretary the Minister may, instead of transferring the duties of county officer to the county secretary, transfer them to one of the assistant county officers. If the post of county secretary becomes vacant subsequently, the assistant county officer will assume the duties of county secretary as well as county officer, and his title will be county secretary. The Order made by the Minister can, by virtue of sub-section (8), include a provision that the other remaining assistant county officer will then be known as assistant county secretary. Sub-section (5) provides that an Order cannot be made transferring the duties of county officer to an existing assistant county manager without his consent. You cannot load on to him an additional job without his consent if he has been there before the passing of the Act.

Sub-sections (6) and (7) deal with the opposite case, that is, where the office of county secretary is vacant at the commencement of this part of the Act or becomes vacant thereafter. The Minister may, by Order, after consultation with the council of the county, transfer the functions of the county secretary to the county officer and change his title to that of county secretary. If the county officer was previously a county manager, then, by virtue of sub-section (7), the Order cannot be made unless he consents thereto.

Sub-section (9) links with sub-section (3) of Section 9. It enables the Minister, whenever there is a vacancy in the office of county officer, to appoint a person to hold temporarily the office of county officer until a permanent county officer is appointed or until an order is made under this section amalgamating the office of county secretary with that of county officer.

Mr. Corry

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am prepared to let the House discuss all the amendments together, so far as they are relevant to the issue. There are some points in them which make me doubtful as to whether they can all be wrapped together. I allowed the Minister, on Deputy Childer's request, to make a statement regarding Section 15 because Deputy Childers said it would help them to come to an understanding.

Mr. Childers

The complaint is often made at present that the most desirable and best persons in the community cannot see their way to become members of local authorities, mainly for the reason that they have not got the time, but it will be found in future, when the Bill becomes law, that such members must be whole-time members of local authorities. In addition to performing all the functions of the county council, this secretary of the future will also have to perform functions as chief officer of the other local authorities, urban authorities and town commissioners, of which there may be four or even six in some counties.

The Minister has said just now that the council can appoint assistant secretaries. Two or three may be required, but the chief officer will be absent from his principal office dealing with other duties, with local authorities in the area, for a good portion of his time and will leave in the office a junior official to deal with very important work. That work may be performed over the phone with the Department or with citizens of that particular county. The chief officer will be going around the county. At the present time, in the absence of the manager you have the secretary, but when Section 15 becomes law the manager will become secretary and will have junior officials under him to take responsibility for many important matters.

I think the Minister, the Government and those who support it should at this stage shed the hypocrisy of this whole thing. This Bill was brought before the House and this section was embodied in it in a fit of pique. It is unworthy of any Government to set out to demean and belittle a set of officers who have served this country well for a number of years. During the recent emergency, the county managers, as we had them then, performed very important functions. At that time, in the event of a major emergency they were entrusted with the full functions of government in their respective counties.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I wish to make clear my own position in relation to the remarks made by Deputy Allen. I am sorry he could not substantiate the allegation he made, that not only was it the deliberate purpose of the Minister and the Government and those supporting it to demean and belittle the personnel now filling the posts of county managers, but that that had been made clear as the object of the Government by the Minister in his Second. Reading speech. I do not believe that charge can be substantiated. I sincerely hope the Minister made no such utterance and I do not for a moment believe that he did.

As a member of a local body, acquainted with many members of local bodies in the City of Dublin and throughout the country, I would like to make it quite clear that there is no animosity personally against those holding these particular posts, as far as members of our Party are concerned and, I think, as far as the Government as a whole is concerned. It is one thing to look on the post: it is another to consider, as Deputy Allen and Deputy Childers endeavour to do, in discussing this section, the particular occupants of the posts. I think it is quite improper—subject to the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle—to indulge in a debate on this section along those lines. Possibly, both Deputy Childers and Deputy Allen are aware of that and aware that the Minister would not propose to follow them along that line.

In so far as the grievance is against the Minister and the Government for seeking to abolish the office of county manager, I believe it is the right thing to do. It was one of the major blunders of the Fianna Fáil régime and I think Deputy MacEntee was responsible for extending this particular managerial system to the counties. It was unfortunate that the first Government—I think the present Minister for Education was in charge of local government at the time—ever hit on the particular phrase "city manager" to describe these particular officers. It was an unfortunate description and one which certainly should not have been perpetuated. If this Bill did nothing but alter the title of the principal officer, it would be well worth putting through the House. The whole theory of local administration, as it is known here and in Great Britain, is that representatives are elected locally to carry out the administration of local affairs. The alteration of this system, so that the officer became a manager rather than a servant, is one which every member of the Fianna Fáil Party—and particularly Deputies MacEntee and Childers, who had close connection with local administration— knows very well was resented not only by local representatives but by a big body of public opinion throughout the country.

As far as I am concerned—and I think I can speak for nearly everyone occupying these benches, on this point —we are not approaching this Bill or Section 15 in any spirit or desire to insult or demean any of the present occupants of these posts. I would like to make that clear, because that has been the suggestion made by Deputy Childers, followed immediately by Deputy Allen, in their remarks on this section.

Mr. MacEntee

I understand that Deputy Cowan has moved amendments Nos. 24, 25, 27 and 28, and that we are entitled to discuss these amendments on the section. I propose just to say a few words in comment upon the starting change in attitude on the part of Deputy Cowan which these amendments suggest when they are contrasted with amendment No. 11. All of us who recall Deputy Cowan's performance on amendment No. 11 will undoubtedly have called up to their minds the image of the walrus who, after he had repleted himself with a feast of oysters, took out his handkerchief and wiped his streaming eyes. That, you all will remember, was the precise way in which Deputy Cowan painted the luckless position of county managers under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Minister's Bill. He told us what was going to happen if the Minister consulted with the councils of the counties before deciding to which county he would appoint the county manager: all considerations of justice and humanitarianism would be wiped away. He was thinking of the man who had established a home and whose family were being educated in certain schools; he pointed out what a hardship it would be to him to be appointed to a certain position, a very lucrative position, I may say. What has Deputy Cowan proposed to do under the amendment which proposes to delete sub-section (4) of Section 15? Under the Bill as it stands the Minister proposes to make an Order under the principal sub-section of the section:—

"Transferring functions to the county secretary of a county and such county secretary was appointed to that office before the commencement of this part of this Act, the Order shall not be made save with the consent of such county secretary."

One would think that that was a very harmless proposal, an equitable and just provision to have included in the section, but Deputy Cowan proposes in his amendment to delete the sub-section so that the Minister may make any Order he likes in respect of the officer without even consulting the officer concerned.

Captain Cowan

The Deputy has not read amendment No. 22.

Mr. MacEntee

Oh, I have read amendment No. 22, but I do not see that they are related to each other; they stand separately. If the Deputy wanted to amend the section substantially he could have proposed to delete the section and substitute another. I am not responsible if the Deputy was too indolent to draft an amendment that would have disclosed this intention. When he put amendment No. 11 on the Order Paper he put it in such a way as to conceal his intention; I do not say he is doing that now, but merely through indolence he drafted these amendments or perhaps they were given to him and he flung them at the House.

Let us leave that aspect and come to another one. I notice that Deputy O'Higgins has left the House. If there is one thing that has characterised the manifestations of political unity which we have been experiencing from the Government Parties during the last few months it is the way they stick to one another and occasionally they try to stick knives in one another, but I have not heard any dagger and cloak attack upon any Minister such as we have listened to to-night from Deputy O'Higgins. Deputy O'Higgins got up here and ascribed all the follies, all the misfortunes, all the evils, of the managerial system to that bright particular self-described star of the present Government, the present Minister for Education.

Deputies who were present at the Fine Gael Árd Fheis will know that I am not in any way exaggerating the opinion the Minister for Education has of himself in the political firmament of Ireland. Here we had Deputy O'Higgins blaming Deputy Mulcahy because it was the Cumann na nGaedheal Administration that introduced the managerial principle into Irish local administration. I am not going to say that merely because Cumann na nGaedheal introduced that principle it was a bad principle. On the contrary, we approached this problem in an objective way and decided that it was a good principle and that if it were good enough for Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford it could equally be applied to County Dublin, County Cork, County Limerick, County Waterford— yes, and all the other counties in Ireland. That was done in 1940 and it is merely a manifestation of the utter ignorance that characterises the pronouncements of Deputies who support this Bill that Deputy O'Higgins did not even know what Deputy was Minister for Local Government when that Bill was introduced. I do not say that with any idea of refusing to accept responsibility for the County Management Bill when it was introduced by Deputy Ruttledge who was then Minister for Local Government. I do not refuse to accept responsibility, and full responsibility, for the fact that the Bill was introduced because, when Fianna Fáil was governing this country we had a Government which honoured the Constitution and which accepted collective responsibility for everything a Minister did and for everything a Minister said. The doctrine of constitutional responsibility has long been thrown over but the mere fact that it has been thrown over does not excuse Deputy O'Higgins for getting up here and making a statement which, if not deliberately misleading, was founded on ignorance.

Let us come to Section 15.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon)

Hear, hear.

Mr. MacEntee

Section 15 is a rather extraordinary section to appear in this Bill. I unfortunately had not the advantage of being in the House when the Minister for Local Government was introducing it, explaining it to the House and disclosing the purpose behind it, but it seems to me to be a curious section and quite an unnecessary section unless, of course, there is an ulterior motive in the minds of the Minister and the disunited Government of which he is a member. Why is it necessary, first of all, to declare in the Bill that the county manager will now be called "county officer" and, in the second place, to take power under Section 15 to turn him into something else? Surely that is a procedure which should be explained at some length so that we may see precisely what is the purpose behind the Bill, because I do not think the purpose is being disclosed.

I move to report progress.

An Ceann Comhairle

In the discussion of this section, not on the whole purpose of the Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

If I am permitted to do so I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 14 Feb 1951

Committee on Finance. - Local Government (County Administration) Bill, 1950—Committee Stage.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Feb 1951