asked the Minister for Local Government the reason for the delay in sanctioning the appointment of rate collectors in County Longford; and when he intends to give sanction.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Longford Rate Collectors.
29.
The proposal by the Longford County Council for the appointment of five rate collectors which involved a change-over from the office system of rate collection that had been in operation for some time required detailed consideration. When approval issued in August, 1965, to the local authority's proposal to change over from the office collection system and to create posts of outdoor rate collector the particulars then available showed that the results achieved by the office system compared unfavourably with the results of the outdoor collection. Since then, however, arising out of correspondence with the local authority on the overall unsatisfactory position, returns received, in particular those for 31st January and 28th February, 1966, indicate that the office system of collection has improved considerably and is significantly more effective than the outdoor system. It will not be possible to make a fully reliable assessment of the relative efficiency of the two systems until the returns for the present month become available.
In the meantime a decision on the proposed appointment of outdoor collectors has been deferred.
The March returns should be available within the next week or so and I will then be in a position to communicate with the local authority.
In view of the fact that advertisements appeared in local papers after the vote had been taken at the county council meeting, surely it is the Minister's duty now to sanction the appointment of those five people, or is the reason not to appoint one of political expediency, due no doubt to the fact that none of the candidates or the people who would be appointed——
Will the Deputy allow me to answer the question? I have already indicated in my reply, if the Deputy was listening to it, the basis on which in August last year I agreed to change from the office collection of rate payment to outdoor collectors, but that information has since then shown a considerable change, and in the recent available returns from 31st January and 28th February, so radically has the situation changed that the office collection is now significantly shown to be more effective than the outdoor collection system, which is a complete turnover from what it was last August.
If you approved it last August, is it not the usual practice, as has always been done in the past, that the appointments were sanctioned by the Minister for Local Government within a month or six weeks without waiting for any investigations, and further, is it not quite evident that there could be radical changes when hundreds of civil bills were issued in County Longford to make people toe the line and pay up this money earlier than in other years?
That will be taken into consideration also.
Further arising out of the Minister's reply, is it not true that in the past the Minister gave his consent within a month or six weeks, and is it not true that in County Tipperary where a county councillor was kidnapped and kept at his home and not able to vote and two Fianna Fáil rate collectors were appointed——
This question relates to County Longford.
Yes, and at that time the Minister gave his reply and sanctioned the appointments inside two weeks. Is that not true? Why the difference? This is an important matter of political thuggery of the worst description.
(Cavan): Might I ask the Minister through the Chair if it is not significant that, notwithstanding that over a number of years the collection by the office proved less efficient than collection by outdoor methods, there should be a surprising change for the better within months after it has been decided to change the system?
What yardstick is being used in measuring the efficiency or otherwise?
If Deputies do not allow me, I will not remember all the questions that are being asked. Can I make it clear that if the information I got from the county council in question last August is the proper information, the position has radically changed since then and it is my duty to consider the change before taking any final decision. The question of why the changes have occurred will be considered but I should like to say that I am not accepting as conclusive proof that the changes shown in January and February indicate a significant improvement. The full picture will only emerge at the end of the financial year.
Which is today.
Political thuggery. The Minister should not look at me like that or I shall ask him about some private deals.
When the Deputy asks a question, would he please have the manners to wait for the reply?
What about housing sites taken out of a compulsory purchase order?
For Deputy Fitzpatrick's information, changes other than those submitted for sanction took place in the months he spoke about which could have a bearing on the improvement that took place in the office collection. Other changes have occurred since.