I am not aware of the customs of this House and I wonder whether it is the intention of any Senator to take charge of this Bill and explain its provisions.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - CORK CITY MANAGEMENT BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be read a second time."
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Minister will.
To introduce it to the House and explain it before there is any criticism on the Second Reading. I would ask you to inform us as to that point—whether it is either customary or desirable that the provisions of a Bill be explained to the House by a statement before any criticism arises.
CATHAOIRLEACH
It has not been the custom, but I think it is desirable. The custom has been to criticise and the Minister generally replies. I think it would be better for the Minister to introduce the Bill.
May I move that the consideration of this Bill be postponed until someone is able to speak to the Bill?
I understand there are Senators interested in supporting the Bill and I am prepared to speak to it.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Perhaps it would be better to speak to the provisions of the Bill.
I take it this is an official Government Bill.
Yes. Senators will find the structure of the Bill quite simple. As the law stands, there are certain powers and functions vested in the Council of the Cork County Borough and other powers and functions vested in the Corporation. The Bill vests all these powers in the Corporation and sets aside certain powers, called in the Bill "reserved functions," and vests them in the new Council that will be set up. It vests all the other powers and functions of the Corporation in a Manager who is to be appointed. The Bill provides that the special powers that are set out in Section 8 shall be vested in an elected Council and that all other powers of the Corporation be vested in the Manager to be appointed in accordance with the following sub-sections. It gives the Manager complete control over the machinery for actually carrying out the work of administering the city and executing whatever work requires to be done as a result of the decisions of the Council. The Council proposed to be set up is a small one. The original Council consisted of 56, the present Council, it is proposed, will consist of 21. Personally I consider a somewhat smaller Council would, more efficiently and quite as suitably, do the work but in the discussions in the Dáil on the matter the number was extended to 21. The nature of the functions the new Council will now have are of such a kind that a smaller Council will quite adequately and sufficiently do the work. The number of members of the Council as compared with the electorate will be rather definitely smaller than was the position under the old arrangement. But the important thing, to my mind at any rate, is that the Council that shall be set up in the city shall be of a size and of a kind that will be an efficient Council, and the question whether there should be one councillor for five hundred electors or one councillor for one hundred electors is of very little moment.
Under the old arrangement a large number of committees had to be attended to, but under the new arrangement there will be fewer committees. The Bill contains powers under which the Council can appoint on such committees as the Technical Instruction Committee and other committees persons who are not necessarily members of the Council, and who, because of their qualifications, are persons most fitted to act on such committees. There are two special committees acting separately, namely, the Board of Assistance, where a considerable amount of money expended by the Corporation is distributed, and the Mental Hospital Committee. In the case of these two committees, because of the amount of money collected by the Council and spent by these committees, it is considered that members representing the Corporation on them should be members of the Council proper. The Bill, however, contains a provision by which, if the Council desires to nominate as one of the members of either of these committees the person who is Manager of the city, he may be nominated to represent the Council on either one or the other. The fact of a small Council brings us to a position which, from my point of view, is very desirable, and that is to preserve Cork City as an electoral unit so that there will not be wards. Under the old system, under which you had 56 members to be elected, the city was divided into seven wards. Under the Bill, with twenty-one members to be elected, it is proposed that there will be an annual election for one-third of the Council. The first election will be for twenty-one members.
Under the provisions of the Bill as originally introduced into the Dáil the Council was to have consisted of five members only. As now changed it would have consisted of seven members for the first year, fourteen for the next, and then twenty-one. Seven members would have gone out and seven would have come in annually. It was thought desirable that a full Council should be set up at the beginning. Therefore, for the first election it is proposed that twenty-one members will be elected, but that they will be elected as from one electoral area. The objection to dividing the city into wards is, in my opinion, so great that, although there are objections under the proportional representation system to electing twenty-one members on one panel, it is a question of the choice of two evils for the first election, and by far the greater evil would be, in my opinion, to divide the City of Cork into ward areas. The Bill makes provision that the first Manager will be the present Commissioner of Cork City. The reason for that is that the new arrangement under this Bill will still represent part of the transitional period. When the old Cork Council was dissolved a Commissioner was put in. We are now passing from that stage to the stage where you will have a Council and a Manager. It is considered of the greatest importance that the present Commissioner will be the first City Manager, and he has been personally named in the Bill. I would have been prepared to take his name out of the Bill, and say that the first Manager will be appointed by the Minister, but, generally, I did not think that that was desirable. The suggestion was made subsequently that the putting in of the present Commissioner as the first Manager in Cork City was the making of a party appointment, so that in face of a suggestion like that I was not prepared to do it, because I thought that the appointment of the first Manager in these circumstances should be left as an Oireachtas decision, so that we would get rid of the suggestion of party in the matter.
The Bill contains provisions under which the powers of the Council can be further extended by resolution passed by a two-thirds majority and subsequently agreed to by the Minister. On the passing of such a resolution, the Minister can add by Order to the functions that will be reserved to the Council; in the same way in the case of want of confidence on the part of the Council in the Manager, a resolution of want of confidence passed by a certain majority of the Council and approved of by the Minister would be sufficient to have the Manager removed. The Managers, after the first Manager, will be appointed under the Act dealing with local appointments generally. These are the principal points arising out of the Bill, which, as I say, is rather temporary in its structure. I think any other points that require to be dealt with can be dealt with in the course of the discussion here at a later stage.
Like Senator Johnson, I am not acquainted with the methods of procedure in this House and I would like to know whether it would be possible, now that we have had a statement on the Bill by the Minister, to adjourn the discussion on this Bill for a week. My reasons are these: It has not been possible for us to consider or to formulate with any care certain amendments which I feel confident the Minister would be inclined to accept. I wish to know whether it is incumbent on me here and now to formulate amendments which I and my friends intend to propose, or that another day would be given to us to discuss the Bill. I think, so far as I can understand, that that was the idea in Senator Johnson's mind. However, if you wish to discuss it now, we are prepared to do what we can.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Your amendments will come up on the Committee Stage, and you will have ample time to consider your amendments.
I understand at this stage it would be proper to indicate to the Minister the general plan of certain amendments which we desire to propose so that he and his officers may have an opportunity of considering them and of seeing whether or not he might accept them. The Minister has stated that on one question at least his mind became somewhat elastic during the proceedings in the Dáil. He agreed that the Council should be increased to twenty-one members, and I suggest to the Minister that it would not be impossible for him to extend still further that number and make it, say, twenty-eight. I would not press that amendment if it became necessary, in order to carry it out, to divide the city into wards. But I suggest now to the Minister the advisability of increasing the number of the Council to twenty-eight. It must not be forgotten that he is dealing with the management of the capital of the south. There is another amendment which we wish to propose. It is rather more complicated, but I will try to make it as clear as I can. I wish to submit an amendment to the effect, without in any way repealing the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, that the appointment in the case of any future Manager shall be more or less in the hands of the representatives of the southern capital. As the Bill stands, it reads as follows:—"The officer or manager shall be included in the offices to which the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act of 1926, 39 of 1926, applies."
CATHAOIRLEACH
What section is that?
It is Section 10, subsection (2). Before I advocate the amendment that I wish to propose, I desire to say that I agree with the Minister in this, that we should leave the name of Philip Monahan as the first Manager. Having started with an agreement of that kind, I hope that the Minister will return the compliment and agree with me in the amendment that I suggest in reference to the appointment of future Managers——
Is it in order to propose or to advocate amendments on the Second Stage?
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Senator is criticising the Bill, and this is part of the criticism.
I wish to say that perhaps the Senator is quite right. The Minister will understand that this is rather a complicated matter involving perhaps my going a little into detail. I ask for the indulgence of the Chair and the House.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I have not stopped the Senator so far.
Thank you. My proposal with regard to future vacancies is that under Section 10 (2) the position would be that the Committee of Selection here in Dublin would send down to the southern capital year after year, and generation after generation, a master—because the Manager will be a master—a master whom they must accept. I put it to the Minister that while appointments to ordinary offices in his Department and in other Departments—smaller offices—have to be, and should be, regulated by the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act of 1926, a little exception, not an amendment of the Act of 1926, but an exception to the Act of 1926, should be introduced in dealing with this office of Manager for the City of Cork. It was suggested in the Dáil that if the plan succeeds in Cork it will be tried in Limerick as well and, perhaps, in Galway, and I apprehend that in the course of time the provisions of this Bill which is now before the House will apply to the great cities of Ireland. My submission is that the office of Manager in Cork, and, as we expect, in other cities, will be an office of very great importance. The Manager will be a princeling in the South, with the Mayor of the Palace at his elbow having no power. Under this Bill the City Manager of Cork will be the great executive officer of the City of Cork, and I now suggest to the Minister—I will hereafter move an amendment to this effect—that Section 10 (2) should be extended somewhat in these words——
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Senator need not go into the details of the amendment he suggests.
The Minister will understand my point. It is that that sub-section of the Cork City Management Bill, and not the Act dealing with the appointment of officers, should be modified so as to provide that instead of sending down one name with an ultimatum to make an appointment, three names should be sent to Cork, with power to the representatives of the City of Cork to select from amongst the three. In urging that, I am quite confident the Minister will always be able to find in this country three men of sufficient ability, or who consider themselves of sufficient ability, to fill any particular job—except, indeed, in the case of the Seanad.
The next point which I would like to call the attention of the Minister to is that there does not appear to be any age limit in the Bill. Under the terms of the Bill the Manager is entitled to hold office for life. I have no objection to a genial old gentleman being Manager for the City of Cork, but I am afraid the citizens of the southern capital, a great and progressive city, would not want to have a hardy old Methuselah as Manager of the city. I submit these matters for the consideration of the Minister in the interval between now and the time when this Bill will come up for more close discussion.
This Bill makes a new departure, because it is giving legislative effect to a system which was brought in during recent years by the appointment of Commissioners for the purpose of carrying on the duties and functions of local authorities. This is an experiment, and, for the first time, the Minister has brought in a Bill to give legislative effect to proposals with regard to the management of the affairs of various local bodies. The principle involved in this Bill is one which ought to receive very careful consideration. Speaking with some knowledge, and experience of local administration, I am frankly satisfied that some change is necessary in the old system as we knew it. I am satisfied that there should be some change. The proposal in the Bill is that there shall be a Council set up, and, in addition, a City Manager. The whole issue in connection with this Bill arises in Sections 8, 10 and 14. In Section 8 we find reserved functions, and that means exactly that the functions that will be reserved for the Corporation when it is brought into being are those that are enumerated in the section. It does appear under Section 8 that there is a considerable amount of authority still to be vested in the Council. I am not quite clear how it will work out. I can imagine that with a Manager who is properly equipped with knowledge and experience of local administration, and with a good Council, everything would work out satisfactorily; but I can foresee a certain type of Manager who might be appointed and who might think he was the lord of all he surveyed, and that he was entitled to act as dictator. There would be nothing then but endless confusion. If the managers appointed are men of experience in local administration, men of commonsense with ordinary business capacity, probably everything will work out well.
I am not quite clear whether the new Council will have sufficient power. If there is disagreement between the Council and the Manager, the Council have power to submit the question at issue to the Minister for decision. There is some reservation in that respect that is somewhat satisfactory. With regard to the appointment of the City Manager, the Minister has stated that for the first time in an Act of Parliament there has been mentioned the name of the man who will be appointed first. I offer no comment upon that. Future appointments, it is proposed, will be made through the Local Appointments Commission. I am in entire agreement with that. The fewer jobs the members of local bodies have to give away the better it will be for the conduct of public business in this country. I say that because of my experience of local administration. I think it is absolutely necessary that all such appointments should be put up for competitive examination and let the best person, man or woman, irrespective of religious or political beliefs, be appointed. In the future all City Managers will be appointed by the Local Appointments Commissioners. With all respect to the views put forward by Mr. Comyn, I do not think he need be so terribly alarmed about the sending down of Dublin Jackeens to the southern capital.
I never called them Dublin Jackeens.
Well, I will call them Dublin Jackeens. It appears to me to be an extraordinary thing at this time of day, judging by all we hear with regard to the ramifications of people from the southern capital in other places, that anybody should protest against people going down there for a job. The position, so far as I understand it, is that there are so many Cork men coming to Dublin they are driving the Dublin men out, and they have to go down to Cork to look for a job. That is an aside. The principle that the appointment shall be made by the Appointments Commissioners is perfectly sound, and in the best interests of local administration. The question of the control of the staff is another important matter, and it is laid down in the Bill that the staff shall be controlled by the City Manager. I agree to a certain extent that that is the proper procedure, but I am afraid it can be stretched too far; I can foresee differences of opinion between the City Manager and the Town Clerk, and these are likely to react on the proper administration of affairs in the city. This is an experiment, and I think, on the whole, that the Bill is entitled to get a fair chance.
I should like to call attention to what I regard as a most unnecessary and objectionable clause at the end of Section 8, that the amount of the salary and the remuneration of the Lord Mayor shall be fixed by the Council themselves. I wonder in these days, when there is arising all over the country an outcry as to the unnecessary expense and taxation that is going on, what is the necessity for paying the Lord Mayor at all. You have got the City Manager, who is, apparently, to do all the work, and the office of Lord Mayor is more or less ornamental. Surely they can get men in Cork of sufficient patriotism to fill this office without pay. What is the necessity, as Senator Farren said, for creating another job and putting it up for competition?
I beg your pardon. I did not say anything of the kind.
That was the gist of it.
No, it was not.
It would be the effect of it.
Allow Senator Farren to put his own case and you put yours.
I also agree with Senator Comyn that there is absolutely no need for multiplying these offices. As this Bill is likely to be a precedent for others, as Senator Comyn said, to my mind that is a very objectional provision to remain in it. I hope the Minister will consider the matter favourably and, before the Bill leaves the Seanad, that that objectionable clause will be struck out.
Before introducing this Bill, the Minister called a conference of the members of the Dáil and Seanad who come from Cork, and all attended with the exception of Deputy Hugo Flinn. In the main, the outlines of this Bill were agreed to. I should say, however, that Deputy Anthony was not an agreeing party. The rest of us were in substantial agreement, subject to certain modifications and amendments which, I think, were introduced into the Bill since. These did not go as far as some people would like to go, but certainly, let me say quite candidly, as far as I would like to go; not that I accept the measure and approve of it in every detail, because I also will probably table a few amendments. The Minister met in the main the points of divergence which were discussed. Senator Farren said that this was a new departure. So it is. But, in fact, we in Cork have had a few years' experience of it. Frankly, I was not enamoured of it in the first instance, but it has been a success. If the scheme set up in this Bill is successful in Cork, it will be wise for the Government to try it on in other portions of the country. That view has been very loudly expressed in Cork county. The members of the County Council themselves think that a Manager, or two managers, as the county is so large, would be a great help to the Council in getting through the work, owing to the multitudinous duties that have to be performed. I did not hear Senator Comyn refer to Dublin Jackeens, but I heard Senator Farren referring to managers who may be lords of all they survey. We have a very summary way in Cork of dealing with lords of all they survey. If the Manager's administration is such as runs counter to the views of the citizens, we will make short work both of the Department that sends him down and of the Manager himself.
A SENATOR
How?
We have people in Cork as vocal as I am. If a case can be put up which, on its merits, no Minister can stand over, we will make very short work of the Minister and of the Manager. With regard to the extension of the Council, frankly, I would be in favour of a small Council. Twenty-one members, I consider, is not unduly large. I ask Senators to bear in mind, when considering the size of the Council, that provision is made in the Bill for a delegation of the powers formerly exercised by members of the Council to such citizens as the Council may select because of their special qualification or suitability for the particular committee on which they will be asked to sit. If this works out satisfactorily, as I hope and think it will, the Council will be in the position of a board of directors, and the Manager will be what is usually known as the general manager. In fact, he has a sort of dual office, inasmuch as he also has access to and the right to sit at the Council, giving the benefit of his experience and views at each meeting. I have had experience of one particular board of directors where we had a most efficient manager and a most efficient secretary, and I think that if the position of the Town Clerk could in some way be strengthened in this Bill it would be an advantage without in any way taking away from the power and influence of the City Manager. This, in some ways, is a Bill which I think might be improved by consultation and conference with the Minister, rather than by speaking on amendments. In the main, it is a fairly satisfactory one, and I quite agree that it should be given a fair chance.
The Minister, in introducing the Bill, very carefully avoided dealing with the principles involved, but gave some indication to the House of the details which are fairly obvious. I think that, on Second Reading, it is desirable to draw attention to some of the principles involved and the tendencies that are bound up with the Bill itself. I agree that the Bill should have a Second Reading, but I ask the House to consider whether there ought not to be a readjustment of the relations between the Manager and the Council to alter the bias, to give the Council the real responsibility and authority, and put the Manager in a position of responsibility to the Council, not as master of the Council, because that is the position involved in the Bill as it stands. Nominally, you have the board of directors and general manager, as referred to by Senator Dowdall, but if that is the real analogy, it is a board of directors which meets once a year to pass the dividend, giving the general manager the responsibility of running the business. That may be the desire of the House; it may be, and I think is, the desire of the Minister. But is it the desire of the House to introduce as a permanent feature of the local government system in this country that kind of centralised authority with a nominal elective body in control of policy? It seems to me that if one is looking for an analogy, instead of taking the board of directors of a company one had better look a little further afield, and I think if we consider the growth and development of imperialism we will understand it a little more clearly. You have, in fact, in this proposal the idea of Whitehall administering by a high commissioner a certain region of the earth for a period with a view to the eventual development, that it has always claimed, of local and national self-government. At a time in the course of the history of that particular region the high commissioner is replaced by a governor, who is allowed to call to his aid an advisory council, who will tell him all about the affairs of the region, but the governor will be the real working authority, and the governor will, in fact, be appointed by the central government in Whitehall. I think that is a fairer analogy of the position that is being created by this Bill. The governor of Cork City has been, and is to be in this Bill appointed by the central administration.
The Minister has put the name of Philip Monahan into the Bill, with the object of throwing the responsibility for appointing that person on the Oireachtas. That is a Committee point, I admit, but still a very important one. I suggest to the Seanad that it is a very undesirable precedent to ask this House to join with the Dáil in declaring that a person about whose competence they know nothing should be placed in a position of control of the government of the city. If we are to be required to put into legislation the name of any individual, we ought, in duty to ourselves and to the city and the country, to have some authentic records of his experience and capacity. This is not an administrative authority; it is a legislative authority, and it is most undesirable, I submit, to create a precedent in a public Bill by inserting the name of the administrator without any testimony as to his capacity or character or anything else. As I say, that, after all, is a Committee point, but I hope, whatever may be substituted, it will not be allowed to remain in the Bill.
One has to consider this Bill in the light of recent experience. The desire has been expressed here, and it has been expressed fairly commonly throughout the country, as almost everywhere since the war, for highly centralised administration, powerful governors, authority in individual personal hands to govern countries and to administer regions. It is easily defensible, but it is very questionable wisdom. After all, a local administration has to think of something more than business efficiency. It is necessary, I submit, to think of the effect upon the growth of civic responsibility. If you take from the citizens the real responsibility for the government of their area, you are removing one of the most highly commended attributes of the people of this country and of western Europe generally, and unless you encourage that sense of responsibility you are making critics of local government and critics of national government, but you are not making responsible critics.
The commissioner system has been adopted, and I am prepared to concede that so far as we know, it has shown a certain amount of efficiency in administration—as I say, so far as we know. The light of criticism is not levelled at the commissioners as it has been and would be at a council. It may take ten or fifteen or twenty years time, before the defects of the commissioner system are revealed. But that is by the way. Who is going to advocate, before the public, as a permanent method of civic administration, that a centrally appointed commissioner should have authority? As I say, it is defensible from the point of view of mere efficiency, but it has never yet been advocated by responsible Ministers. Even Ministers, when away from the promptings of the bureau, will declare, as was declared very recently, that it may be undesirable—there was a certain regret in the admission—to decide at present that the elected councils should be abolished entirely. We have been told in regard to this Bill that it is quite experimental; it is not intended in its present form to be the permanent method for the government of the city of Cork. But it is commonly believed that in its present form it gives the general idea as to the model upon which local government in the future of this country is to be built. If there is to be a model, I ask the Seanad to agree that the control of policy should be retained in the hands of the elected Council. Let the administrative authority, the executive authority, by all means remain in the hands of the executive officer, but let that officer be responsible to the Council for the work he is doing. That is not embodied in this Bill, although people think it is.
The Minister has told us more than once that this is intended to be transitional, and, as he explained to-day, it is possible within the scheme of the Bill that the powers of the Council should be extended, and by that fact the powers of the Commissioner or the Manager, as his name will be in future, will be diminished. The powers of the Council are defined here in Section 8. It is true that the power of making a rate is retained to the Council. In that sense, so far as it is effective, the Council has control, but it is really not a very effective control in practice. Once the Council has passed a rate the City Manager will be independent of the Council in a very large area of operations, and can snap his fingers at the Council if he wishes. I said that the Council should retain control of policy. I put it to Senators that on such concrete propositions as the housing of the working classes the Council may have views as to the type of house to be built. The City Manager may have different views. In that case who is to decide the policy—not the working of the job, but the type of house that is to be built? Should it be the Manager or the elected Council?
As I read the Bill, the Manager's will will operate, if he so desires, in defiance of the Council. I submit that it should be the other way around; that the Council should be the ultimate deciding factor on questions of policy. Let it be required of them that they should consult with and take advice from the Manager, and let the Manager's pressure be as strong as possible, but let the final decision remain with the Council. I take that as one illustration. As I read the Bill, it is quite possible for the Manager, within the powers that are to be granted to him, to sell the property of the Corporation, to lease the property of the Corporation, to dispose of the property of the Corporation. Now, a very good case might be made for the leasing or sale, or the disposal in some way of the property of the Corporation, but surely that is the function of the Council, representing the people, and not of the Manager. I believe that that idea of the ultimate control in matters of policy remains in too many cases with the Manager under the Bill. That ought to be reversed, and I hope will be reversed in the course of the Committee discussions.
I agree with the observations of Senator Dowdall regarding the position of the Town Clerk. In view of the division of authority in respect of the work of the Corporation, while some powers are retained by the Council, the main powers are retained by the Manager. The Town Clerk ought not to be subject in every way to the Manager; the Council ought to have at its disposal and under its control a chief executive officer who will be independent of the Manager. Otherwise the position of the Council will surely be that it will have no authority of any kind over any person in its employment. The Town Clerk or any other official will always be subject to, shall I say, the fear that if he runs across the Manager his occupation is gone. That is a kind of fear that may operate, and we must bear in mind that this scheme is designed to be a model for the general administration of local affairs. It is not only applicable to Cork. If it had Cork only in mind for a year or two, and if there was no fear that it was going to be extended to Dublin, Galway, Waterford and Limerick, one might say: "Try it on the dog." But I do not believe that this House ought to make itself responsible for this kind of departure, stabilising as a more or less permanent feature of local government the position of a Manager appointed by the central authority, who is able, in the greater part of the work of the Corporation, to do as he wishes, irrespective of the will of the Council.
There are many points that might be touched upon if one cared to illustrate the general view that I am trying to express, but they will be dealt with, I have no doubt, in the course of the discussion, in Committee. But I ask the Seanad, while conceding that the Second Reading of the Bill should be agreed to, to keep an open mind upon the details, and to approach the Committee Stage with the determination that it will preserve for local representative institutions real control over broader matters of policy. I think we may claim that those who have been associated with us on these benches have for long advocated a more expert control of the merely administrative activities than the present council system allows, but that we should preserve to the elected body the real control of policy, while giving to the expert Manager administrative authority.
I feel very much in sympathy with the point of view that has been expressed by Senator Johnson, whose wise counsel, might I add, will be, I am sure, a great addition and help to the deliberations of this House. I feel that during recent years we are very much disposed to take the short view, the easy view, in the matter of local administration. We are inclined to say that it has failed, and that we have to set up some form of more absolute authority. We are inclined to say that the method of popular election has failed. It may be so, and it may be that what was once said to me by a distinguished historian is true, that Parliamentary representative government is not a specific for all people, that it suits some races and does not suit others. It may be as a whole that we are not as a people eminently suited for representative institutions. But I think we have gone too far to take up that line now. We have set up an orthodox Parliamentary system of government, and if it is not suited to the country we here, or the Dáil, are equally unsuited as any local body. I feel that we have got to go further and be more patient with the system of local administration. We have got to suffer a certain amount of growing pains, and that a long time—two or three generations perhaps—will pass before we will be perfectly certain that the system of popular election and popular control of local bodies has broken down.
We hear a certain amount of what is called diarchy, and the objection to diarchy in administration, as I see it, coming into local administration now is triarchy. We have the central body, the Local Government Department, insisting in interfering in innumerable details of the work of local bodies, so much so that my experience in a local body is that they are undermining to a great extent by their interference the responsibility of the elected representatives. If that continues, and more patience is not observed in regard to mistakes, the time will come when you will not get the right kind of men to go up for election to these local bodies, and I would almost say that we have had some ominous portents of that at the last elections, where, in certain counties at any rate, there was very grave apathy with regard to the local elections. In the case of this Bill we see the third principle—triarchy. We have the central body at headquarters, we have a Council, and then we have a Manager. I think there is a great deal to be said, and I think Senator Johnson agrees that there is a great deal to be said, for placing purely administrative responsibilities on one individual and recognising the fact that a large body of people is not suited to the rapid despatch of business. But we need to be very careful before we depart from the well-founded, sound business system of making the directors—the elected people—responsible for their policy, and making the Manager merely a subordinate executive officer. analogous to any business manager. I am very much in sympathy with that view, and I shall certainly support any amendments that seek to carry it into effect.
I desire to support the general principle of this Bill, while reserving to myself the right to consider favourably any amendments that may be moved for the purpose of improving it. I think the Minister adopted the proper course when introducing this Bill, when he took into consultation the members of the Dáil and Seanad who were intimately interested in the government of the City of Cork. I think it is a procedure that might be usefully adopted before other Bills are introduced. The Minister had an opportunity of having the views of those representatives, and I may say at the start that the number of members of the Council was fewer than is now proposed. I think there were only fifteen, but those he consulted were of opinion that that number was too small. Now I see by the Bill that the number has been increased from fifteen to twenty-one, which, I think, is sufficiently large for the transaction of the business of the City of Cork. As regards the powers of the Manager, I consider that when the Council has power to refuse funds that is the greatest possible control over the Manager. The estimate of expenditure for the financial year will have to be sanctioned by the Council before the rates are struck. There was an idea that on account of having a small Council there would not be sufficient members to act on the different committees of the Corporation. It is an improvement that it is now possible for the Council to elect members to these committees who have special knowledge of the business to be transacted, who are not members of the council, and in that way the work of the members will be greatly lightened.
There was a further clause in the Bill that I objected to at the time, and that was that the manager of the Council would be present at every meeting of joint committees; that is, committees appointed both by the Council of the City of Cork and by other bodies. Such a privilege would militate against other Councils, because there would be an extra representative of the City of Cork. I observe that in the Bill as it stands now the Council of Cork will have power to appoint their Manager as one of their representatives, and that the number they will be entitled to appoint will be reduced by one, in the event of the Manager being appointed. I think that is very fair to the other Councils that have representatives on those joint committees. Some of the amendments foreshadowed here may deserve consideration, and I shall be prepared to give them all the consideration possible when they are brought forward on the Committee Stage. I approve of the Second Reading of the Bill. It introduces a new system of local government, and I think it is worthy of a trial.
As regards the principle involved in this Bill, looking at the matter from an idealistic point of view, I am disposed largely to agree with much that Senator Johnson said— and I certainly congratulate him upon the accuracy of the definition he gave of what the real issue is in this Bill. Local government ought to be better than centralised government in the matter of city management, but in the light of recent experience, and experience of long standing also, I disagree with him entirely and am in favour of the Bill as it stands. Senator Johnson's strongest point appeared to me to be that of the importance of creating a civic responsibility, and he laid great emphasis on that. There has been no lack of time. The old system of city management has been going on for a long time. The results of that system were in many notorious instances not satisfactory, and where Commissioners were appointed improvements have been made. The new system has really no monopoly of apathy. At present I am in favour of the Bill on the merits, and I am prepared to vote for it as it stands.
I want to make one or two remarks on the various criticisms that have been raised, more as a protection, so that in consideration of the amendments we shall keep our minds very clear as regards conflicts which seem to me to almost inevitable in this decision—as regards the powers of the Manager and the powers of the Council.
From the definition in the Bill as regards the Manager, we can gather that, in effect, the Manager is going to be the controlling influence in the Corporation. That, of course, is the ideal position, provided you get the perfect Manager. It is a dangerous precedent if it is going to be followed in other cities and towns, for the simple reason that you may not always get so competent a Manager as the Ministry has been fortunate, I believe, in getting in the city of Cork. Senator Johnson has brought forward a proposal as regards having full control and responsibility vested in the Corporation. With that I am in complete agreement, but what is likely to happen, as a result of our discussion of amendments in Committee, is that we may get confused between the two points of view, and that something in the nature of a compromise may result. I would like that the Seanad should be made fully conversant with the definitions and powers that are ultimately going to be entrusted to the Manager, and with the powers that are going to be ultimately entrusted to the Council. Otherwise, I can see grave danger in the future of a conflict between the two points of view: threatened resignations, responsibility for pensions, and all the attendant evils that follow the clash of points of view on a board of directors.
Senator Dowdall seemed to draw from the Bill a parallel between a city manager and a board of directors of an ordinary public or private company. Personally, I cannot see that, and that is my objection to the Bill as it is at present. I hold that the Manager should be entirely subject to the control of the Council. I think that a good many of us here would hardly be prepared to be elected to the dignity either of an alderman or of a councillor in the City of Cork if we felt that we were simply asked to meet, and then, having met and seriously considered for three hours or for three days various measures, found that we had no authority to put those measures through. In other words, that the Manager was in essence the effective executive director of the whole concern. There is another point that occurs to me, and it is this: Is there any definite decision as regards how long the Manager is going to act? The Bill would seem to suggest that at least he would act until he becomes a pensionable civil servant. Now, I suggest that is a very dangerous experiment. We may work for two or three years successfully and agreeably, and with great benefit to the people of Cork, with one Manager, but we may find that through various circumstances, such as different points of view, different social elements and different upheavals that may occur in Ireland in one phase or another, that the Manager may be in direct conflict with the Council. Therefore, I think we would need to be more specific as regards the terms of his appointment. Is he to be a permanent civil servant? The Bill seems to suggest that. If that is so, I submit that it is a dangerous thing, because the Cork Corporation is then going to be saddled with an official for a period of perhaps 25 or more years. It would take a very big effort to get rid of him. It is all very well to say it that that is safeguarded by a two-thirds majority of the Council but I suggest that it is not an easy matter at times to get a two-thirds majority on a Corporation. It comes to this, that in the last analysis perhaps the Ministry may have the appointment or decide whether the Manager is to be dismissed or not. That, again, is a very dangerous thing. It brings forward the danger, or the suggestion of danger, of political preferment. One Party may be in power to-day and another Party to-morrow. I submit that it is inevitable, and I suggest that we may as well be quite frank and honest about this, that political preference does operate in a Government Department in making appointments. I do not suggest for a moment that it is the sole thing that is considered. In fact, I think that, on the whole, things are not so bad as one might have expected, but there is that inherent danger. Those of us who know something about the way political parties operate, not so much in Ireland as in other countries, know that there is great danger of getting not only incompetence but dishonesty.
One of the Senators here, whose name I do not know, suggested that the Corporation would have control of funds. I wonder just would they. It is very difficult to see the Corporation getting down to details on the matter of the control of funds. They will make broad decisions. They will decide that it is desirable to carry out certain structural works in the city of Cork, such, for instance, as the building of bridges or the making of some alterations or something of that sort, or it might be the giving out of certain contracts, but it seems to me that within the Manager's office, and within his power, lies the whole decision as to how these things are going to work. He will, after all, be the guide, manager and director, really, of the whole institution. On the whole, I am inclined to the view of Senator Johnson, namely, that the Corporation should be the directing force, taking the place, as it were, of a board of directors by giving instructions to the Manager. That is managership as I have always understood it, and it is what I think Senator Johnson means in the case of Cork. It is certainly what I would agree to. I would suggest, at all events, that it is the best way to approach the situation. These matters, I suppose, will be dealt with in Committee.
I personally feel that it is very regrettable that a civic spirit cannot be more encouraged in Ireland than it is. At the same time we have to be realistic about it, and to realise that under local authorities certain corruption, perhaps, did take place. It may take place in the future, and we want to take every precaution to prevent that. But I can see nothing but conflict between the Manager and the Corporation unless the powers of both are more clearly defined. I do not think that the powers of the Corporation, as embodied in the Bill, amount to anything. I do not think you will get men of any spirit, men of dignity or decency to go on the Corporation when all the decisions and all the directions are going to be at the discretion of the Manager.
A certain number of small points were raised in the beginning of this discussion that, I think, can best be dealt with when we come to the Committee Stage of the Bill. The main point that seems to have troubled Senators is the question of the Council and the Manager: where the division of responsibility and where the powers of control exactly lie. Then we had a point raised with regard to the Town Clerk. Senator Johnson thinks that the real control over all matters of policy should lie with the Council. I think that the Senator has been somewhat unfair in some of the suggestions that he has made. At any rate I would like to see where the words are in the Bill that show that in the broader matters of policy the Council will not be the complete controlling body. The Senator suggested that the City Manager will be independent of the Council over a large area of operations, and that he can snap his fingers at the Council. I would like to know, in more detail, in what particular matters the Manager can snap his fingers at the Council. Senator Connolly suggests that except there is a clearly defined authority there will be inevitable friction, and that confusion will arise from it as between the Manager and the Council.
I quite agree, and it is because of that in the case of the Council we have absolutely and clearly defined what their powers, functions and duties are, and that everything else is left to the Manager, because it will be impossible to do what I think the Senator suggests, that we should also schedule what the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Manager are. A manager responsible for executive work has a multiplicity of things to deal with, and if you tighten him down with a schedule he will find himself in a very awkward position, and might not be able to do a thing that quite obviously was necessary.
We cannot have a blurring of responsibility. That is one of the things I endeavoured to be particularly clear about in the getting out of the Bill. Senators must be clear that as long as there is any obscurity in the Bill, any imperfection in it which can only be got rid of by amendment, if any amendments can be brought forward to enable to be shown more clearly in the Bill the duties and responsibilities of the Council, I will be very glad to make any such amendments. I do not know any better way of doing it than the way we have done it, that is, to schedule the main reserved powers and then give power in the Bill, so that while the Council stands over its own work it will also stand alongside the Manager's work as a manager. If the Council comes to the conclusion that it requires certain specified things to be further reserved as functions these things can be reserved. That has been allowed for, and I do not know how we can better proceed than by having an absolutely clear division as between the powers of the Council and the powers of the Manager, for the purpose of having on the one side a broad control entirely in the hands of the Council, and powers and duties of executing the Council's intention and generally administering the City in the Manager's hands, and perfect clearness as to where their responsibility lies. It has been suggested that the Council will meet only once a year and pass their estimates, and that the Manager then can spend the money any way he likes without further responsibility to the Council.
The Bill makes provision so far as the Manager has power, duties and responsibilities which were in the hands of the original type of council, and which were carried by means of a resolution, that the Manager shall now carry them out by means of a signed order, and that signed orders shall be available at all meetings of the Council. The Bill provides that in the case of any information in the hands of, or in the procurement of the Manager, the Lord Mayor, and through the Lord Mayor any member of the Council who desires, shall have it made available to the Council. The Bill makes provision that if the Lord Mayor desires he can exercise personal supervision over the making of payments, and no payment may be issued without his signature, so that he can, if he so desires it, as a matter of general practice, or for any particular period, come in and supervise payments. There is nothing to prevent the Council being entirely in touch with everything the Manager is doing. While we here might ride away on the supposition that everything would be right if there was a good Manager, but that the Manager would be always bound to be a bit of a crank —while we might be inclined to ride away on a theory like that in a discussion of the Bill, as a matter of fact the Council and the Manager, in the carrying out of the administrative work of the city, will find themselves in a different situation. With regard to the suggestion that the Corporation will not have control over the type of houses to be put up at the expense of the city, or that the Manager can dispose of Corporation property without the knowledge of the Council, both suggestions are unfounded.
Despite the fiat of the Council.
The Manager cannot dispose of any property without Ministerial sanction, and to talk about the sanction of the Council, and he cannot do it without public notice in the Press, so that the position is fully safeguarded. We might ride away on suggestions that all kinds of queer things are going to happen because we have a Manager who is given big powers and responsibilities, which, if there is to be effective control of the city, he must have. I am sure the Seanad will not ride away on these suggestions. The Seanad can amend the Bill by definite amendments that will stand the test of scrutiny. I feel that that really is the main point. Some other matters have been raised. The suggestion has been made by some Senators that there is unnecessary interference from the centre with local government, which will destroy both the spirit and the will of local government. I, personally, stand for the making of local government within its own sphere the most effective thing which it can be made from the point of view of carrying out the work that can be best done locally, from the point of view of developing in the people a sound civic spirit that must redound to their general well-being, both spiritually and materially.
If there is, as we hear from time to time, a position in which a certain class will not go forward and take their part in local government, let them not blame in any way the Government for it. They can, in the long run, simply blame no one but themselves. Certain people say that a poor type go into the Councils, but that things would be different if they went in, and that they would go in only for all the petty interference to which councils are subjected. The type of interference from the Department of Local Government that is going on at present is the type that will strengthen the hands of the local government bodies so as to give suitable and effective machinery to give effect to their will when they formulate it and decide what they want to do. In the appointment of a City Manager we are simply seeing that there is going to be put into the hands of the elected representatives of the city the most efficient type of managing machinery that we can put at the present moment. The point has been raised particularly with regard to the making of a special position for the Town Clerk under the Manager as distinct from that of the Manager.
If the Town Clerk had to perform certain duties for the Council as such it should be part of the Manager's responsibility, if necessary, to see that that part of the Town Clerk's duties is fully and properly dealt with, and I do not see how, without creating confusion in the responsibility right at the top, you can make a special position for any person such as the Town Clerk and say to him: "You are a different person, you do not come under the Manager the same as the other people do." The type and character of the Town Clerk's work will dictate his particular position, but it would be wrong to the Town Clerk, to the Council and to the Manager to say to the Town Clerk: "The Manager has not as much control over you as he has over the others." I can see no satisfactory position for any officer of the Council, whatever his position may be, except under the general scheme of the machine and that he will come directly and completely under the Manager. I think, on consideration of the matter and of its actual working out in practice, that will be fully appreciated.
Question put and agreed to.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Apparently there will be many amendments to this Bill. I would suggest, with agreement, that we would take the Committee Stage on next Wednesday.
Agreed.