County Management Bill, 1939—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
In the absence of Senator Lynch, I have agreed to move the following amendment standing in his name:—
1. To insert the following new subsections:—
(2) If within one month after the passing of this Act an elective body, by resolution, declares that the provisions of this Act should not apply or have effect in relation to such elective body, the adoption of such resolution shall operate to exclude from the operation of this Act such elective body and the provisions of this Act shall thereupon cease to apply to such excluded body.
(3) A resolution adopted for the purpose of the next preceding sub-section of this section may be rescinded by an excluded body at any time.
The expression "excluded body" means an elective body which has adopted the resolution referred to in sub-section (2) of this section.
I think the advocates of this Bill claim for it that it will be effective in bringing about a more efficient administration of local government. We believe that the right to opt out of the Bill should be a cardinal feature of the Bill, and the amendment seeks to establish that right. I am sure there are many elective bodies discharging their duties in an efficient manner who resent the effort made to deprive them of that right. The amendment endeavours to establish the right of such bodies to opt out, if, by resolution, they declare that the provisions of the Act shall not apply, have effect or have relation to such elective bodies.
Sub-section (3) provides that if at any time an elective body wishes to rescind a resolution to opt out it can do so. We think that in view of the efficient and loyal service given by these people to local government, they ought to have that right. Many councils resent the effort to deprive them of the power to give useful social service to the community. If the intention in the Bill is to remove from people the right of local administration, then I am sure the Minister will object to any body opting out, but I think it good that we should establish that right, in view of the efforts being made to lessen the right of the people to take an efficient and intelligent part in the administration of our affairs.
I oppose the amendment, and I believe that if it were accepted it would nullify the whole purpose of the Bill. It has been said, and I agree, that there are many county councils very efficient and doing their work in such a way that nobody could take exception to them, but the fact that these councils will have a county manager will not make them less efficient. I think the majority of the councils who are efficient are the councils which would welcome the appointment of a county manager so that some of the responsibility might be taken off their shoulders, and, for that reason, I think the Minister should not accept the amendment.
This amendment, if passed, would cut across the whole principle of the Bill which was accepted on Second Reading. Elective bodies include borough councils, urban councils, town commissioners, boards of assistance, mental hospitals and port sanitary authorities, and if the Bill is not to apply to these, I do not know to whom it might apply. The proposal would not be workable for one thing. Suppose a council did not opt out and some of the bodies under it did, you would have the whole thing divided up in the most extraordinary way, with the manager not responsible for the main portion of the duties that should be assigned to him. I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
What is the case for making the Dublin City Manager identical with the Dublin County Manager? I should like to hear some case being made for that. Quite a number of points arise in connection with it. There is Dublin City; there is the coastal Borough of Dun Laoghaire; and there is Dublin County. At present, these three places are separate, and have three separate staffs. The intention of the Bill is to put one individual manager in charge of the whole of that area. That is a very large job, and it is being done before these places are themselves formally amalgamated at all. Are they going to retain, for example, the three separate staffs, and what are the functions of the assistants going to be? I do not know if I am quite in order, but this whole matter arises again on Section 9. For the moment, I should like to know what the case is for making the Dublin City Manager manager also for the county and the coastal borough.
As the Senator knows, there are a number of services common to Dublin County and City, such as mental hospitals and so on. A recommendation was made in the Greater Dublin Commission Report as to an amalgamation of Dublin City and County, but we do not think the present time opportune to submit proposals to the Oireachtas for that amalgamation. What we have in mind, however, is—and it does not in any way prejudice the Oireachtas dealing with the matter later—that we should have the machinery set up, so that if it were decided afterwards to go ahead with the Greater Dublin scheme, the machinery would be available for operation. It might be considered that the Dublin City Manager's position is pretty big, but I do not think it would be any bigger than that of the manager in County Cork when you take into account the number of elective bodies in that county.
Difficulties arise from time to time, which, if we have the same manager for Dublin City and County, there might be means of avoiding. The most recent case brought to my notice is this difficulty about school meals for children at Crumlin. The position which has arisen there is that the school is built in County Dublin, a few yards outside the city boundary, while, of course, the children are from inside the city area. You have some conflict of interest between bodies in cases such as that, but, if you had the same manager, he could appreciate the difficulties and devise ways of getting over them much more easily than would be the case if you had different managers for different areas.
When the county manager takes up his position as manager for Dublin City and County, he will, in the first instance, be manager for both. He will be in control of the assistant managers for County Dublin who may be dealing with affairs of County Dublin. As to how he is going to assign duties to these people, I have not any clear picture, and I do not know whether he will bring the present manager of Dun Laoghaire into the City Hall and assist him in operating from there, or whether he will assign a certain number of institutions to one of the assistant managers. He might, for example, assign an assistant manager to Grangegorman and the Dublin Board of Public Assistance, or he might assign another assistant manager to deal with such institutions as Rathdown Union and Balrothery. It will be a matter of working it out. I do not think it will do any harm, and if it is ever decided by the Oireachtas to go ahead with the unification of the city and county, the administrative machinery will be available.
Will the staff remain intact in the two places?
They will. There will be a secretary to the Dublin County Council, in addition. The present secretary will remain as secretary, if he is not selected by the Appointments Commissioners as assistant manager, and there will be a town clerk also in Dun Laoghaire. The staffs will remain as they are.
Mr. Hayes
Then there will be the same manager for three separate staffs.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Before or as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the Minister shall, in respect of every county appoint a person to be the county manager for such county or, in the case of grouped counties, for each of such grouped counties from such commencement until a person has been appointed under the foregoing provisions of this section to be the first county manager for such county or each of such grouped counties, as the case may be.
I move amendment No. 2:—
To insert after sub-section (2), in page 4, the following new sub-sections:—
(3) The Minister may, by order, whenever he so thinks proper, prescribe rules and regulations, in regard to the educational or other qualifications of candidates, who may offer themselves for consideration by the Local Appointments Commission, for recommendation to the offices of county manager, assistant county manager, city manager and assistant city manager.
(4) The Minister may whenever he so thinks proper, revoke or amend any such rules and regulations made by him under the preceding sub-section.
(5) Every rule or regulation made, revoked or amended by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as conveniently may be after it is made and if either such House shall, within the next 21 days on which it sits after the order is laid before it, pass a resolution annulling such order, rule or regulation, such order, rule or regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
This amendment arises out of the fact that I thought the complexity of local government had now become such that serious consideration must be given to the necessity for special education of the servants of local authorities and particularly of the more superior officials. Under the present Bill, the method of appointing the first officers is probably the best which can be found at the moment, and does not contemplate the uniformity of knowledge and education which my amendment allows the Minister to lay down, as and when the correct time arrives.
As I have said before, this complexity does call—in the interest of the public—for some scheme of general education in the various subjects which managers—and, in later years, the subordinate officials of local authorities—will definitely require. Even though it may be fully realised by Senators, I feel it is not realised by the general public, that both managers and assistant managers in these days must know a great deal more than a little about a whole lot of things. They need to know about road construction and maintenance, as they will now have to superintend the county surveyor, who will be completely under their control. They will have to know something about the building of hospitals and sanatoria, about the picking of the right kind of sites and giving the right ideas to experts. Then there is the question of housing and the complicated one of town planning, and also the questions of home assistance, the provision of water and sewerage, education and scholarships and a host of other things. A man brought up as an apprentice to a carpenter by rule of thumb—as a great many people have been in years past—must know what that position has become since, and that he is not going to be so well qualified to cover all the ground as a man who has been educated on definite lines. I think common sense and experience go an immense way and the educated fellow cannot possibly do without them, yet the trained man will definitely use his brains to better advantage.
Would any Senator in this House commit his affairs to a lawyer not inscribed on the Law Society Register or to a doctor whom the medical profession did not approve of or who was not on their register? In the same way it seems to me to be most important that the public should be given the advantages of some form of training of their officials. I feel that the Minister misunderstood me when I mentioned university training or training in the same way as civil servants. What I visualised was really some form of diploma, not necessarily a long course at a university, which the young man could not afford, but study in his own time. He would know that when he has passed a certain examination he is going to be qualified.
I am not really dealing with the first appointment of managers, but with the qualifications of managers in future years as they arise, and I suggest that the Minister may lay down some course which would lead to a diploma, to be issued either by him or by a board appointed by him, which would cover generally the following subjects which I have in mind: a general knowledge of the Irish language and Irish history; a knowledge of public administration, a great deal of which will have to be learned from experience on county councils or elected bodies; a knowledge of economics and public finance; some idea of modern political institutions, so that he may be able to apply his mind to advising Ministers as they come along, in regard to local institutions; a knowledge of business administration, not only the rule of thumb method as laid down for civil service and local authorities examinations, but also statistics; and a general knowledge of law and engineering. These are many and varied things, but the manager who is going to carry out the laws laid down by the Department of Local Government and Public Health in these days must have an all-round knowledge of these things.
Looking forward again, I would suggest the principle that—taking for granted that the applicants have the character and other characteristics required in a manager—only those should be considered who can achieve the highest form of diploma or standard which the Minister may lay down. Later on, other officials would get Certificate A or B and work their way up to the top. People may say that a diploma of this kind only provides us with a "Jack-of-all-trades." I would rather look at the matter otherwise. The man who is definitely striving for a high standard in the elements of his profession would be very much better able to estimate the value of the various proposals which come before managers of local bodies for housing and other things and he would be able to check up on what the experts put forward. He would be able to do that much better than he would with only a bare smattering of the subject. When he has checked up, he will be a wise man and will not meddle with the expert once he has approved of the plan but will let him carry the thing out according to the financial rules which his council have laid down.
Naturally, I do not specify any time for this to be introduced, and I say: "The Minister may, by order, whenever he so thinks proper...". I want to try to establish the principle that, in years to come, when there has been time to consider this thing and to consult with the universities and other authorities, the Minister may be able to say: "Now, for the next batch of managers which I am going to put into place as vacancies occur, I am going to require the following qualifications." Such officials as are at present serving in local government in the counties or under elected bodies and who propose to put themselves forward as candidates for these higher appointments will be warned to study on certain lines. I hope the result of this will be that in future years the public will get a very much finer service than we have at the present moment.
I would like to give my strong personal support to the object of this amendment. Unlike one of the other amendments with which we have just dealt, so far from being a wrecking one it seems to develop the main purpose of the Bill and to be one which the Minister should receive with the utmost sympathy. As I conceive it, the main purpose of the Bill is to ensure that those who administer our local affairs shall be expert in the art and science of administration.
Public administration is both an art and a science. It requires for its successful conduct not only skill— which may be largely a personal quality and a matter of practical training—but a knowledge of a number of difficult and complicated sciences which form the background of all successful local administration. Therefore, it is not enough to rely, as we seem to be doing in the present phraseology of this Bill, on the acquired skill of existing county secretaries, and so on. No doubt, those men in many cases are very able and valuable public servants. We ought to do something on the lines suggested by Senator The McGillycuddy to encourage these men to acquire, in addition to their practical training, a knowledge of those theoretical sciences which are at the foundation of all successful public administration. This is a matter which has attained to considerable development in other countries. There exists—in England, I think—a body known as the Institute of Public Administration, which provides courses and examinations in the various sciences which form the background of public administration. Such subjects as law, economics, finance and others important in that connection, are included.
Now the Institute of Public Administration has much the same function in relation to the practical work of local government and administrators in England, as the Bankers' Institute has in relation to the practical work of bank clerks. The banks for a very good reason encourage their clerks to acquire the additional theoretical knowledge that they obtain under the auspices of the Bankers Institute. For exactly the same reason and in exactly the same way, we can provide encouragement for administrators under local bodies to acquire this additional theoretical knowledge which they could acquire under a suitable institute of public administration. I do not know whether any such body functions in Ireland but if it does not, the sooner it is organised the better. I think I can say on behalf of the university with which I am associated that the organisation of such an institute would be received most favourably and we would do everything possible to further the work of such a valuable public institution.
If this amendment were to come into force immediately, or if it meant that the Minister was going to make such regulations immediately, I think I would be opposed to it. It is quite clear that its object is to provide for the future. I agree very largely with what Senator Johnston has said. I certainly think that if this whole system, which is extended under the Bill, is going to be a success, we shall have to look to the provision, and the regular supply in future, of suitable persons. For that reason, I think that the creation of some kind of institute of public administration would be of great value. It would be very much easier to establish such an institute or course of study if the Minister had power at some future date to insist on certain qualifications. To that extent, I entirely agree with the amendment. I think it is most important that the men who are going to hold these posts should be able to reach a professional standard of their own, that it should be a question of honours generally, and that the standard should be reasonably high. While I agree to that extent with the amendment, I am not quite sure that I could agree with some of the remarks made by Senator The McGillycuddy. I am not at all sure that some of the subjects which he mentioned are subjects of which it is desirable that candidates for these posts should know a little. I think in many cases a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that a man who knows a little about building for instance—just enough to lead him to interfere with somebody who knows 100 times more than he does—may be an actual danger. I think the real advantage of education is that it enables a person to understand certain problems as they are presented to him by experts. I do think that if you could get an institute for public administration it would provide the necessary course of studies. I do not place as much importance on the diploma as on the actual course of study itself. I would support this amendment or some similar provision which would give the Minister power to prescribe a standard at some future date for candidates for these posts.
There is no doubt that in the course of time a county managership will be regarded as a profession and the ambition of capable men will be attracted towards such posts. That is so in other countries. In fact, as it originally developed, the eyes of all important cities in America were directed towards managers in other cities and the usual competition resulted. Offers were made to highly successful men who had made their mark, and the city that could offer the highest attraction in the way of salary and the assistance of competent subordinate officials, got the best men. I was greatly struck by what Senator Douglas said because, to my mind, it burst up the whole amendment that is proposed. We cannot make a man of ability by teaching him a smattering of a diversity of subjects. The first appointments will be filled by men who already have had actual experience in their own selected profession that fits them for these positions. It is absurd to think that the Oireachtas—if the Minister were capable of such a folly as to propose it— would accept the proposition that the first appointments should be made by filling the positions with A, B and C, not because A, B and C had acquired competence, but because they happened to be in certain positions and out of kindliness of heart and good feeling we would not like to dismiss them. There seems to be something of that mentality in the case of those who are willing to tolerate the filling of positions in the first instance by this method and who desire to have these educational standards provided for some future period.
The late Viscount Haldane, who was both a very capable lawyer and a great statesman, addressing a meeting of Scottish teachers many years ago, said:
"Other things being equal, I would rather have an educated man to dig my garden than an uneducated man."
That is the principle that is working in the mind of The McGillycuddy in his proposal. He wants educated men. So do we all. We want men who, as Senator Douglas put it so aptly, have got that flexibility, that aptitude to see and understand what an expert in a particular subject puts forward and who will have the humility at the same time to regard the expert for what he is. In the case of a competent county manager, what we ought to look for is not the possession of a certain kind of knowledge that can be easily acquired by a young student by diligent application to the Encyclopædia Britannica or some similar work of that kind. We want men who are able to work with men and who are able to control subordinates. The subordinates are subordinate only in a very technical sense, because they are frequently men filling high positions and men with very long experience. I can easily conceive—I am sure Senator Johnston has had the same experience as a university examiner—of a youth who could, with a good grinding, secure full marks in an examination for a diploma such as has been outlined and who would be utterly inefficient in the office over which he is supposed to preside. He must have had the actual training, he must go through all the hard apprenticeship and, by personal achievement, he must acquire capacity. That is the only way. No doubt if he is a highly educated man it is all the better. He would be more competent to meet others in conference.
I hope the Minister will remember also, in dealing with this proposition, that ample provision is made to serve the purposes the amendment intends by the candidates presenting themselves to the Local Appointments Commission. Presumably, the Local Appointments Commissioners will know the candidate for assistant managership or county managership and they will, of course, as wise men, take practical means of ascertaining whether he is acquainted with the duties that are attached to the position. They will know what to look for and I hope that they will be able to take a glance at what, in this connection, is barbarously called "personality." They will be able to look at the man for his qualities and not merely as a storehouse of information.
I suggest that it would give the public a great deal more confidence in the appointments if they knew that this practical form of test followed the line that the candidates, unless they were very foolish, would be asked what experience they had in this line of activity, how many years they had been county surveyors, engineers, architects, planners of roads and building estates, and so on. Satisfactory answers to questions of that kind would be more consoling to the ratepayers of a county than answers that would be scientifically accurate or statistically correct, in other words, general information.
I see certain dangers in this amendment, and those that strike me are that it may happen some day that we may have a corrupt Minister. God forbid that that should happen in such an important Department, but if the situation arose he could manipulate the qualifications on a certain occasion to suit certain candidates and to exclude others.
If you read Section 5 of the Bill you will see that you will have to get a corrupt Dáil and Seanad also.
The amendment says that the Minister would have the power to prescribe rules and regulations, but it does not say that they are to be submitted to the Seanad.
That is covered by No. 5.
At a later period, yes, but for the purposes of a particular appointment the Minister is to be empowered to make rules and regulations and if he wants to revoke them at a later period he will have to come before the Seanad. I see a great danger in the position. A Minister might have a particular candidate in mind whom he wanted to place.
I am speaking only of what is possible under that amendment, but the position is that the Minister could frame the regulations to exclude candidates other than the one he wants. He might prescribe a knowledge of Greek or Latin which only one candidate might possess, and once the appointment is made the Minister would have no further use for the regulations and he could then come before the House with them. I admit that the danger is present only in certain conditions, but nevertheless it exists. I agree also with the last speaker that experience and general knowledge and the capability to handle men and the power to administer and to govern, do not come by mere inspiration; they come from experience. I believe in time to come there will not be any great difficulty in selecting from assistant secretaries, county surveyors and such people, men who have the necessary training and the ability to handle men. I object to the Bill as a whole, but since we have it here, I think we should try to make the best of it, and for that reason I object to the amendment on two grounds, the first being that no educational qualifications or passing of examinations will secure the best men and the second, that it may lead to corrupt administration.
Mr. M. Hayes rose.
Perhaps I could shorten this debate.
I was about to say that surely the Minister has power to do this already.
Yes, that is the position. Section 7 of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, sets out:
(1) Whenever a local authority or the Minister requests the commissioners to recommend a person for appointment to an office to which this Act applies the commissioner shall, with the consent of the Minister, prescribe the qualifications as to age, health, character, education, training, experience and (where, in the opinion of the commissioners the duties of the office so require) sex for such office.
That is as wide as it can possibly be. It is true that in this Bill we are making special provisions with regard to the first appointments in order to effect a smooth change-over. We are giving a preference to secretaries of county councils and of boards of health. Another Bill will be introduced in the Dáil very shortly— I hope in this Session. I mentioned it when I was dealing with this Bill in the Dáil. It is rather a long Bill, but this Act will be dependent on it coming into operation on its passage. It deals with the number of members of county councils and so on, and among other things, with the taking over of the setting out of the qualifications from the Appointments Commissioners to the Minister. It is the Minister who will declare what the qualifications of the office are to be. When that measure comes up, I think that Senator The McGillycuddy will find that he will be met, so far as that goes, because even as it stands the Appointments Commissioners can prescribe any particular qualifications they like, at least whatever they think necessary or desirable. I must say from my experience that in appointments made to high offices there has been plenty of competition and there has been no difficulty about getting people with experience and with the necessary qualifications. These are positions that will be very much sought after in the future. They will be very responsible, and, I expect, fairly well paid, and I believe that there will be plenty of competition and that a very high standard will be reached.
With regard to the suggestion of setting up something in the universities, I am quite sure that the people who are interested in public administration and who are convenient to universities or who may be able to find an opportunity during their holidays to visit them, would not find much difficulty if they organised themselves and asked for certain lectures to be arranged. I think, in fact, that there are certain lectures on civics already.
There are lectures in public administration available in the university already.
That is a matter that would have to be gone into with the co-operation of the Minister but, of course, depending entirely on the universities to do it, and I am sure the universities would do everything they could to assist in a matter of that kind. It would be for the people to show that they were interested. So far as this amendment is concerned, it is not necessary. The position is set out in the section I read from the Act of 1926, and when the new Bill is brought in it will transfer from the commissioners to the Minister the specifying of the conditions and qualifications, and he will prescribe what he considers necessary for the post.
I gather from what the Minister has said that I have rather wasted the time of the House, but I do not think I have really wasted it, because the discussion has brought up a principle that is not generally known. I am afraid I did not know of it myself.
I only want to deal with one or two points raised by Senator Magennis. I gather that the whole ground of his objections, on the Second Reading of the Bill, was concerned with the fact that a county manager must be an individual who is not only an efficient businessman, trained in details of local government administration, but that he must also be sympathetic and tactful with his equals, inferiors and superiors. As regards the subjects which I thought the Minister might lay down they were not meant to be anything but a general idea to cover the various functions which the manager and the officials would have to know about. Finally, I have never visualised—and I want this to be quite clear—a fellow coming in from outside with a university textbook education, going before the Appointments Commissioners, and being appointed just because he had that type of university textbook education. What I do want, however, is to give an incentive to the younger members of the clerical staff who go into the local government service to fit themselves for the higher positions and to give them better opportunities in that regard than seem to be provided at the moment. However, in view of what the Minister has said, I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Before we come to the next amendment, Sir, might I ask a question in regard to a point on sub-section (2) that I raised on the Second Reading? I do not quite understand why, according to sub-section (2) of Section 4, the Local Appointments Commissioners shall select, otherwise than by competitive examination, and recommend to the Minister a person for such appointment. What does that mean? My understanding was that the board took, let us say, six people, in order of merit, and therefore was carrying out the idea of competitive examination; and, unless I am greatly mistaken, an Attorney-General once gave that ruling.
I think that that is set out in Section 8 of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, which deals with selection by competitive examination. Section 8 of that Act set out what constitutes a competitive examination, and then Section 9 of the same Act goes on to deal with the matter of selection for appointments. Section 9 says:—
"Whenever a local authority or the Minister requests the commissioners to recommend a person for appointment to an office to which this Act applies and the commissioners with the concurrence of the Minister are of opinion, having regard to the nature of the duties of that office, the knowledge and experience necessary for the efficient performance of those duties, and the qualification prescribed under this Act for that office, the person or persons to be recommended for appointment to that office cannot be satisfactorily selected by competitive examination, the commissioners may dispense with the competitive examination required by this Act and may select the person or persons to be recommended by them to the local authority by such means and in such manner as they think proper."
These are the two sections dealing with this matter. One deals with what are called competitive examinations and the other with selection boards. However, it is a matter that I should like to be more sure of.
I wonder what is the selection board, if it is not competitive examination.
Well, there is a distinction drawn there.
I move amendment No. 3:—
To delete sub-section (5).
Briefly, my reason for bringing forward this amendment is that the Minister has taken power to appoint a person to be county manager temporarily and, I take it, that sometime later the permanent appointment will be made by the Appointments Commissioners. In the first place, my view is that we ought to get the best available person for the position of county manager, and I would not restrict it in the fashion in which the Minister has restricted it at all. I think that if you are going to do this you ought to do it in the best way and that you should try to get the best material available.
I am not very optimistic about the value of the measure and, as I have stated already, if you want to get a fair trial, I do not think you can get it unless you have the very best people as managers. The Minister, however, has imposed restrictions here with regard to the people who can go forward, and I think that it is definitely a mistake in policy on the part of the Minister to select somebody for the post of county manager merely to act in a temporary capacity. If you want to put a certain person in for a certain reason, of course you can do so. I am not suggesting that the Minister is going to do that, but I do urge upon the Minister that if you put somebody into such a position temporarily, when that person comes before the Local Appointments Commissioners, they are not likely to turn down the individual whom the Minister has nominated. I think that you are prejudicing the case. If, say, you put a person into the position of secretary or manager, even though that person might not turn out to be as competent as you would like him to be, the Local Appointments Commissioners might not like to turn down that person. Then, just imagine the position you would have where, actually, a county secretary has been in control, but is turned down by the Local Appointments Commissioners and somebody else put over him. I think that there should be a fair field, and if the responsibility is to be put on the Local Appointments Commissioners to make the permanent appointment, then that should not be prejudiced by any act of the Minister.
I think that it is wrong for the Minister to do that, and that, tactically, even from the Minister's own point of view, it is not the right way to approach this matter. I do not know how long the Minister anticipates the temporary appointment may last— whether for a month, three months or six months. I am trying to look at this matter from the point of view of my experience of local government, and I am trying to find out why exactly it is necessary to make a temporary appointment at all. I cannot see the reason. I cannot see any disaster coming upon local administration, because of the lack of a manager for two, three, or even six months, which has not come upon it already, and I should much prefer to have a situation where, as I say, the stand was not taken by the Minister that he had actually handed over to the Local Appointments Commissioners a county manager who was nominally temporary, but who, in fact, was going to be permanent. I cannot follow the line of reasoning that would make the Minister decide to put a person into such a position, whom the Local Appointments Commissioners would afterwards regard as unsuitable, and I think that the turning down of such a person would be bad, not alone from the Minister's point of view, but bad from the point of view of local administration, and equally bad from the point of view of the person concerned. I think the Minister should adopt some sort of scheme whereby every individual, who is available to go up for the post of county manager, should be free to go up for it. Let them all go up together, be graded, according to merit, put in the order of their ability, and so on, one after the other. I think that would be a much better plan, and I can see all sorts of difficulties arising from the policy the Minister has adopted. I believe that the Minister would be very well advised, from the point of view of administration, not to continue with this section as it is.
I think the Senator is under a misapprehension with regard to this matter. This is what is intended here: By the time this Act is brought into operation, you will have all your managers appointed by the Appointments Commissioners with, of course, the first preference, in the matter of selection, given to the county secretaries, as provided in the Bill. I believe that that is what will occur, but what the section is intended to deal with is this: That, if a person should die after being selected, somebody must be put in his place during the intervening period until a permanent appointment is made. That is all is, intended. I suppose you could take a chance, and not fill the appointment in the intervening period, but the only intention is that, if a person dies or became incapable for some reason or other, you should appoint somebody to act while you are waiting for the permanent appointment. Perhaps that is a rather farfetched possibility, but you have to provide against it.
I was going to support Senator Baxter until the Minister gave us his explanation. The point that still strikes me is that if this person were to die the county council is still operating with his staff and surely the county council could go on operating, instead of making a second change, until such time as the Appointments Commissioners found somebody else, because I do see one danger, and it is my experience that temporary appointments create a certain amount of unrest and they also create a vested interest. It may be a very slight one, but it is a fact that people start canvassing to get that temporary appointment made permanent. I hardly see, as long as the county council remains in being, why there is any real need for this, even if the prospective manager does die.
The point is this, that it cannot be done in the way Senator The McGillycuddy has in mind, that is, that the county council should carry on. When this Bill becomes an Act the functions are there set out for a manager to perform. If a manager dies somebody must be appointed there and then to carry out the duties that the manager has to perform. That is what is in mind—probably the secretary of the county council or somebody else or, perhaps, whoever is recommended by the county council. It is for the Minister to decide which of these people may be put in for the period we would be waiting for the Appointments Commissioners. The reason is that you must always have a manager there.
It is very hard to see that in the sub-section. The intention is that the Minister will fix a day under Section 2 for the commencement of the Act and the intention is that before that date is fixed the Local Appointments Commissioners shall have recommended a county manager for each county.
The strange part of it is that no obligation is imposed upon the Minister to set the Local Appointments Commission in motion so as to have the appointments made before the Act comes into operation, but at the same time the Minister is given power before the Act comes into operation to himself make a temporary appointment. I am not looking for the hidden hand, but it does seem an extraordinary provision. The Minister's explanation, I am sure, is quite bona fide but it is extraordinary that the Local Appointments Commissioners are not bound to act before the commencement of the Act, nor is the Minister bound to fix a date subsequent to the date after which the manager shall have been nominated to him, but, at the same time, he has power to make temporary appointments. Of course, the whole case of Senator Baxter's amendment falls to the ground if the Minister has no power to make temporary appointments and thus prejudice the permanent one except in the case of a particular vacancy.
The Minister has certain obligations and they are not set down in any Bill in that particular way. We hope to have all these appointments made before the commencement of the Act. Particulars have already been given to the Local Appointments Commission with a view to getting that done, or they have been consulted about it. There is nothing in the Bill to say that the Minister must make the appointment at a certain time. It is like all other obligations that the Minister has to discharge. We are putting this Bill through for the purpose of certain things being done, one of which is to set up a county manager.
You can only get information by asking for it and the Minister has put an entirely different construction on what the situation is going to be from that of those of us who are ignorant of what was intended in local government. I think my amendment is obvious. The Minister tells us that he has no intention of making these appointments except under certain peculiar circumstances, such as the event of a selected candidate for a particular post of county manager not being available, through death or other reason. I may have appeared guilty of various indiscretions in some of my speech here on the last day, but if you were down the country at the present and if you were asked is So-and-So going to be county manager in such and such a county and is So-and-So going to be county manager in such another county you would know the position. That question has been put to me repeatedly. I found very great difficulty in trying to convince quite a number of people that the first person who could go up for a post in the county was the secretary of the county council and not a particular politician. I found further difficulty in convincing people that, after the secretary of the county council, if he were turned down, then the secretary of the board of health could apply. I do not want to continue that line but I think the section ought to be drafted in such a way as to indicate that it is going to be operated under certain specific conditions which the Minister has indicated might likely arise. I have no desire whatever to tie the Minister's hands in that way but I think the power which he has taken is altogether too wide for the purpose for which he intends to use it. This section is going to be here for goodness knows how long and you could very well have a situation developing here where some Minister could go off and do all sorts of things with regard to those appointments and do it quite legitimately under this Act.
I think the Minister could amend this sub-section in such a way as to provide that where under certain circumstances, if a certain candidate selected by the Local Appointments Commission was not available, the Minister would make the temporary appointment, and I think it would be much fairer to the administration. I am quite convinced of the truth of this. Speaking now as a representative from the country, knowing the atmosphere that this is going to create, I think it would be much fairer to the administration and would give the whole plan a fairer chance of being worked rather than being tied hand and foot, when the Minister can make an appointment in any county to the position of county manager, as he has power to do under this. I am not going to press the amendment any further than that, but I put it to the Minister—I am speaking with conviction—that there is a case behind what I am advancing.
I believe you could get the co-operation of the Appointments Commission to fill these positions before the appointed day. You might get 25 and the other one might be left over by the Appointments Commission. But once that appointed day is here it comes in for all these councils at the same time, and if a person dies after being appointed or selected by the Appointments Commissioners, I have to appoint somebody to act temporarily until they make a new appointment or if for some reason or other—though I do not anticipate it—you did not get their selections for one county or two counties or more, I have to make an appointment once the date is fixed.
Has the secretary of the county council to remain secretary until his successor is appointed?
I think he would carry on both duties. I do not know how it will work out. I think he would get someone to deputise for him as secretary.
What is the legal position of a secretary? Would he have to resign?
Manager and secretary are two different posts to be held by different persons.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I have an amendment down to delete the section and I am sure that the House understands that that only means, in my mind, the reconstruction of the scheme of appointment of managers. The chief matter I have in view is the transfer of appointed managers from one county to another, from the county in which they have served as secretary of a county council or board of health to another county. I think the House will appreciate what I have in mind— that the secretary of a county council or board of health is elected to his position and that all his friends, relatives and possibly his political affiliations are in a particular county. I am of opinion, and I think other good judges are also of opinion, that no matter how they will endeavour to serve the State to the best of their ability, in respect of any appointment they make or any works they order to be carried out, there will be somebody to say that it was done through friendship, through prejudice or for some other reason. My idea is that such a manager will be able to act in a more independent and competent manner by removing him from these affiliations and transferring him to another county.
For the purpose of implementing that proposal on the Report Stage, I have roughly drafted a proposal to the effect that a panel of managers be selected by the Appointments Commissioners from existing county council secretaries and other qualified applicants who will make themselves available to the Minister for allocation to such counties as he may decide, other than the counties in which such persons have served as county secretary, county board of health secretary, or in other public positions. I also propose that this regulation may not apply to county council secretaries who have been appointed by the Appointments Commissioners. The reason I add that qualification is that I am aware of one county secretary—and there may be others—appointed by the Appointments Commission and taken from another county, so that it would not be necessary that my proposal should apply in that case. I think it would be in the interest of the manager and of the county which he manages that he should be perfectly independent by being transferred from his own county to another county.
I support the principle put forward. I said on the Second Reading—and this is possibly the shortest way of putting my views to the House—that I thought it was a regrettable decision that a golden opportunity of creating a general list of county council officials has been missed in the Bill and that changing them from one county to another would be a gradual gain in experience and incentive to energy which staying in one's own county would not produce. The Minister was somewhat short with us and I thought he was a little hidebound by the Department outlook when he said that to him it looked very much like putting them in the same position as officials who are paid out of the Central Fund, a position almost like that of a superintendent of the Civic Guards whom you can change from one area to another. Surely, you can enact any type of legislation to move people, if you think that, as a result of that moving, there will be an advantage in the long run to the public through greater experience, knowledge and energy on the part of these people. You move Civic Guards possibly for that reason, and who also move other people. I do think that, although I do not know that it could be put into this Bill, it is a matter which should certainly be considered in the future.
I support generally the view expressed by Senator Honan and I have given expression to the point of view in another form. It seems to be that the Local Appointments Commissioners have a certain procedure in the matter of the appointment of doctors to dispensaries. There may be three or four dispensaries to be filled and they have a number of applicants going up who can take their choice of the vacancies, and I think it would have been a better method to adopt in this case than the method adopted. I think it true that a great many of the county officials would do the work of county managers in another county better than in the counties in which they are at present operating. There are all sorts of reasons for that, and it is quite possible that the administration of a county manager would be more impartial in a county other than his own than that it very well might be in a county in which he has operated for years.
I see certain difficulties here, particularly with regard to sub-paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) in respect of the grouped counties. The county manager is going to be one or other of two county secretaries, and if you are going to have one of the county secretaries as the manager and the defeated county secretary having to remain at his post under the county manager who has defeated him, I think you are going to have anything but harmony or a happy condition of things. I do not know what you are going to do about it, but there it is.
Financially, he may be better off.
I was coming to that point. I think the Minister could clear up a great deal of doubt and certain misunderstandings in the minds of some of us, if he would give an indication as to what the salaries of county managers are likely to be. I do not know if there are many of them to-day, but I know some county secretaries who have very respectable salaries indeed. I do not know if any of the county managers will get any such salaries, but I think there are quite a number of secretaries who have not got as large salaries as probably the county manager will have.
I wish to come back to this point about the counties which are joined. I may completely misunderstand human nature, but it seems to me that you are not going to arrive at the sort of "pulling in harness" which is absolutely essential in local administration, if you take one of two county secretaries in one of the grouped counties and put him over the other, leaving the other gentleman to continue as he is. I do not know what the local circumstances may be; it may very well be that in all these grouped counties, there may be a county secretary going out on pension, or something like that. If, however, you have two tolerably young men, nearly equal in competence, and one is put over the other, and one happens to be a native and is going to be county manager in that county— with all its local ramifications—I prophesy that the local administration in that county will be something closely approximating to disorder, instead of prospering and being satisfactory as everybody—including the local officials and the Department—would like. That is something which the Minister ought to take into account at once, as it is going to create a problem for him. I could call to mind counties around my own where, if we were going to join two particular counties, I know I should not like to have the job of sorting things out.
I should like to hear what the Minister has to say in this matter. If he has a doubt in his mind, I may have an amendment for the Report Stage.
On the point mentioned by Senator Baxter regarding grouped counties, I suppose we can only go on the experience that we have. Managers have been appointed in certain urban areas already. Members of the staffs of those corporations have been up as candidates for the same position, yet somebody outside with more experience has got the job and has come in over those people. That has happened in Limerick and Dublin, I believe. We have had no indication, however, of any lack of harmony in the relations between the officials and the managers in those particular cases. Town clerks, too, have been appointed from time to time—the secretary of a county council was appointed the other day from Dun Laoghaire, I think, and got a position in Westmeath. That is happening every day before the Appointments Commissioners. Although there may be candidates up from the staff of the county council or local body, when the appointment is made there has been no lack of harmony. Where two secretaries of county councils are candidates, the more suitable one is appointed.
In the case of many counties, I have no idea as to what the salary should be. Taking the urban areas, in Dublin, it is £1,700, in Cork, £1,200, and in Limerick I think it is £800 to £1,000, and in Dun Laoghaire, £1,000. In small counties the manager might not have a big number of institutions; while in other counties there may be bigger responsibilities. There are a number of county secretaries in receipt of fees. They get much higher salaries than they could hope to get as county managers; but the position will be that, if a secretary is appointed a manager he will not get less. That is, where he gets the preference here in the Bill. It would be a joke if we said we would give a preference to the secretary which would mean that he would lose on taking over the managership. That is not the intention at all, I am talking about cases where there are fees which bring the total remuneration up to a very high figure. When a vacancy arises, whatever is the general policy with regard to the fixing of salaries will apply as in the present cases under the Appointments Commission where there is no preference given to county secretaries or to secretaries of boards of health. I think there will be a differentiation between certain counties. Where he has greater responsibilities and more duties, he will have to be paid higher than in smaller counties where there are fewer institutions and less responsibilities.
With regard to the question of transferring, that is a matter which I do not care for. If one takes the right to transfer, then one can transfer from time to time. When a man is put in as a manager, probably he has got a house in the county, and has got to know the county, and it would be wrong, I think, if some Minister could come along and transfer him to another county. Only a few officials who are paid through the Central Fund are transferable. Where they are paid out of county rates, it more or less gives the people there the right to keep the man they have got.
He would be transferred on promotion, with better emoluments?
If a vacancy arises in another county, there is nothing to prevent the manager of one county being a candidate, if there is a bigger salary attached to the position. Probably it would work out all right and there will continue to be competition in that way. Medical officers of health are not transferrable, nor are county surveyors, and I think it would be very unfair to permit the transfer of managers.
Regarding the question of association with people, we know perfectly well that the county manager, after a few years in an area, will become as associated with the people there as if he had been there all his life. If he is foolish enough to get his prejudices, his likes and dislikes, he will get them whether he is there for ten years or five. I hope that will not be the position. When you give the manager powers under this Bill to control staff, he will be in a different position from that of the secretary of a county council, who is liable to be pulled up by the county council for everything he does. I think he will exercise his duties properly and without fear or favour. I do not think it would be a solution to transfer people from one county to another. This is being done for the first managers only, to try and effect a smooth change over. These people happen to be in the counties and to have done well there or they have a substantial association with local administration.
Would it be necessary to make it explicit that, if the county secretary is appointed manager of a county, he automatically resigns the secretaryship?
It would be unnecessary to state that.
I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, although I am not at all convinced by the argument.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 5:—
Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The county manager for a county, being as set out in Section 3, sub-section (4), an officer of the council of that county, shall be liable to (a) suspension or (b) removal at the instance of the council of that county.
(2) The county manager for a county shall not, however, be suspended or removed by the council of that county save by special resolution passed at a meeting of the council convened expressly for the consideration of such special resolution; and the procedure to be followed in respect of this special meeting and the passing thereat of a special resolution of suspension, or removal as the case may be, shall be regulated in accordance with the next following sub-section of this section.
(3) (a) A notice in writing of the intention to propose any such resolution of suspension or removal of a county manager signed by at least three members of the council shall be lodged with the chairman at an ordinary meeting of the council, and the chairman shall thereupon fix a date not later than 14 days subsequent there to for a special meeting to consider the proposition; and due notice of the date and business of this meeting shall be sent to the county manager as well as to every person who is a member of the council at the time of issue of such notice.
(b) No other business shall be transacted at the special meeting thus convened. The proposition shall be declared to have failed to pass unless two-thirds of the total members of the council shall have voted thereon at the meeting and the majority of council's votes cast in its favour has a clear majority.
(4) No decision to suspend, or to remove, a county manager shall take effect unless and until it receives the sanction of the Minister.
(5) A county manager shall have a right to appeal, if he so desires, to the Minister against such suspension or removal by the council of the county.
The purpose is to substitute a different form of words for that which has been used in the existing Section 6. Section 6, sub-section 1 reads:—
The county manager for a county shall not be removed by the council of that county without the sanction of the Minister.
I think that that hits the public—as the phrase runs—in the eye, as nondemocratic, as the assertion of a superior claim on the part of the central bureaucracy, asserted over the rights of the council, notwithstanding that an earlier section has declared that the county manager is an officer of the county council. The Minister as a lawyer will readily remember that in the working of the law of libel, the court takes into account, not what the author of the writing complained of as a libel meant but what the ordinary normal man in the street who has read the publication reasonably takes it to mean. Unfortunately a great deal of colour is lent to the arguments of those who attack this managerial scheme for the counties on the ground that it takes away powers from county councillors who are the elected representatives of the people and that it substitutes an arbitrary professional authority for an elective authority. They find some sort of foundation for their allegations in the sentence: "The county manager for a county shall not be removed by the council of that county." Interpreted freely, that becomes, in ordinary conversation, that the council are absolutely forbidden to remove the manager, so I propose to word it differently and to set it out frankly for what it is, in terms more democratic.
I do not question in the least—and I hope nobody else would—that the relation between national Governments and local government must be preserved, that where a local authority has got administration of its own local affairs, there is over and above that the paramount interests of the nation and that the Minister is the paramount authority, as representing the people at large, rather than the local authority which represents the people in some particular district. I know that the Minister will reply to me that most of what is in my Section 6 is already set out. I agree, of course, that that is so. For example, the amendment states at the outset:—
"The county manager for a county, being as set out in Section 3, sub-section (4), an officer of that council, shall be liable to (a) suspension, or (b) removal at the instance of the council of that county."
That is contained virtually in Section 19 of the Second Schedule. It sets out the reserved powers, that is to say, the powers vested in the county council as distinct from the executive powers allotted to the county manager. Therefore, sub-section (1) of the amendment is identical in spirit, and almost in form, with the provisions of the Bill as it already stands. The only difference I can claim for it is that no one can quote sub-section (1) of Section 6 in support of the allegation that this removes the power from the county council. On the contrary, it distinctly declares that the manager is an officer of the county council and, as an officer, is amenable to all these operations of the council—suspension or removal.
There is a slight difference in doctrine, or rather in practice, in the next sub-section, which states:—
"The county manager shall not, however, be suspended or removed by the council of that county save by special resolution passed at a meeting of the council convened expressly for the consideration of such special resolution."
That is to say, the sole business to be transacted on that occasion is the inquisition into what is complained of in regard to the operations of the county manager. The procedure to be followed shall be as set out in the next sub-section:—
"A notice in writing of the intention to propose any such resolution of suspension or removal of a county manager, signed by at least three members of the council shall be lodged with the chairman at an ordinary meeting of the council."
That is the practice in regard to normal resolutions to be proposed. It is the ordinary normal way of giving notice of motion.
The amendment goes on—
—and the chairman shall thereupon fix a date not later than 14 days subsequent thereto for a special meeting to consider the proposition.
Now, in the next clause there is something introduced that is not in the original measure—
—and due notice of the date and business of this meeting shall be sent to the county manager as well as to every person who is a member of the council at the time of issue of such notice.
The purpose of that is to acquaint the county manager of the fact that he is to be charged, that some complaint is to be made against him for the purpose of having him suspended or, as the case may be, for having him removed. I think that ordinary common justice requires that. It is only just that an officer should get due notice of the fact that a complaint is to be made against him, so that he can defend himself against any cabal which may be worked up against him. The fact that the complaint will be investigated at the meeting has to be communicated to him specifically at the same time and in the same manner as it is to the members of the council. This provision to acquaint the manager is a new clause. Of course there is a section in a later part of the Bill which authorises the manager, if he so pleases, to attend ordinary meetings but I regard this, because it is summoned in a special way, as an extraordinary meeting and this clause is there to provide against his being excluded from the hearing of the charge that he has to answer or of his being shut out on a technicality.
The next portion is sub-section (3) which reads:—
"No other business shall be transacted at the special meeting thus convened. The proposition shall be declared to have failed to pass unless two-thirds of the total members of the council shall have voted thereon at the meeting——"
That, again, obviously is directed against the working up of feeling and the working of promises to vote in a particular way—
"unless two-thirds of the total members of the council shall have voted thereon at the meeting"
There is an unfortunate misprint in the next passage—
"and the majority of the council's votes cast in its favour is a clear majority".
This has been elaborated with the express purpose of allaying anxiety. The whole effort is directed to making it clear that a manager shall be loyally dealt with by the county council which expects loyal service from him. The Bill provides that no decision to suspend or remove a county manager shall take effect unless and until it receives the sanction of the Minister—at least, if not in those words, just as explicitly. The next sub-section of the proposed new section provides:
A county manager shall have a right to appeal, if he so desires, to the Minister against such suspension or removal by the council of the county.
It seems to me that those who are anxious that this measure should pass as a step for the betterment and improvement of local government feel that there should be no room for suspicion and no ground for making charges of unfairness or injustice, but that, on the contrary, if there be any fault to be found, the Bill should, if anything, be obviously bent on observing justice, preserving rights and doing no wrong. Therefore, the county manager is allowed to have a right of appeal, if he so desires, to the Minister. That will, of course, in accordance with the preceding sub-sections, presuppose that the vote to suspend or remove the county manager has been duly carried, and that in the period of submitting that vote to the Minister and the Minister giving his decision, the opportunity will be allowed to the manager to state his case to the Minister. In other words, it makes it very clear that the Minister does not become a rubber stamp in the matter, but that he exercises something of a judicial capacity, that he weighs carefully, by virtue of his office, and his high responsibility, all that has been alleged against the manager, so that the proper relations between the local government and national government will be observed.
Before we conclude the debate on that section, I would like to ask the Minister to accept an amendment on the Report Stage making provision for the men who now hold the position of commissioners. There are only two of them, so far as I know personally, but I believe there may be one or two more, and I think anybody considering this Bill, especially those who approve of it, must take into consideration the successful operations carried out by those commissioners during their term of office. I am thinking particularly of Tipperary and Waterford, and I would suggest that some provision might be made by way of amendment to allow those men to apply for the positions at least. I think as a result of their work that they have proved themselves very capable men.
That matter would have been more appropriate on Section 4.
I understand that the commissioners in those cases are civil servants and that they go back to their departments.
I think that it would be a right principle to have civil servants going back to their own authority. In connection with the amendment proposed by Senator Magennis, I would like to point out that the substance of the amendment is practically the same as the original clause, but it seems to me to clarify definitely what the majority is. The voting strength will be the same. The amendment prescribes that two-thirds of the members should vote, whereas the original Section 6 mentioned that it would be "passed by such council." The amendment definitely defines how the passage is to be executed—that there must be a clear majority of the council. That probably would mean that there would be no such thing as a casting vote.
That is certainly more definite in the amendment than in the original section. Much of the other sub-sections seem to be on the same lines as the original section. I would like to point out in reading Section 6, it seems to me that the county manager must know beforehand of such a motion. It cannot be sprung on him because in the original section it is provided that seven days' notice is to be given. The notice is sent out from the managerial office and the manager would certainly know that such a motion was coming. Therefore, I think that nothing in the nature of taking him unawares occurs even in the original Section 6. It seems to me that beyond these alterations of phrases the amendment contains the same substance as the original section, but that the question of the majority is very definitely defined.
I quite accept those criticisms, but what I would remind Senator O'Donovan about is this: the Bill contains Section 26 and when it becomes an Act it will be a statutory duty of the manager to provide information on certain of his functions at the demand of the council. In Section 28 there is complete control, in any reasonable sense of complete control, given to the council over the manager. In Section 28, sub-section (1), and the following sub-sections, we provide for the framing of estimates for the expenditure of the county council. It is very obvious to an unprejudiced mind that the financial control in regard to budgeting is really with the county council. Yet, in spite of the obviousness and clarity of the section, we have speeches in this House declaring that all the powers are being taken from the representatives of the people. It was that experience which prompted me to reword this. That is all the claim I make for it. It shuts the door, to some extent, at least, against the operation of sincere ignorance, but you cannot close the door completely against prejudice and malice.
I think that the whole point is whether it is sufficiently clear in the Bill itself or not. I must confess that I have been trying to compare them and I do not see that the amendment is very much different from the provisions of the Bill. Sub-section (2) of the amendment provides for a special resolution adopted at a special meeting.
Now, I cannot imagine a council treating such a thing as the suspension or removal of a manager as a matter of routine at the end of a meeting. I do not know whether their standing orders would cover that or not, but I imagine that they would.
I hope that the Minister will not regard my remarks now as an interruption. Since the discussion on this Bill began, I have heard several times from my friend and colleague, Senator Baxter, about the clouds of suspicion and mistrust existing in the county councils with regard to this measure. What I am thinking of in this connection is really the psychology of the whole business. I suggest, with all respect, that it is not sufficient that there should be just this provision in the Bill, and I suggest, again with all respect, that there should not be anything in the Bill that would lend itself to, what I might call, clever misquotation. That is all I venture to say in connection with this matter or in connection with the wording of the Bill. I quite admit that, in substance, it is 90 per cent., or even 99 per cent., the same as the original section.
I think it is made perfectly clear in the Bill itself that you must have two-thirds of the council, whether present or not, in order to suspend or remove a man from such a position. I think it is made perfectly clear in Section 6 of this Bill, which says:—
(1) The county manager for a county shall not be removed by the council of that county without the sanction of the Minister.
(2) The county manager for a county shall not be suspended or removed by the council of that county save by a resolution passed by such council for the purpose of such suspension or such removal and for the passing of which not less than two-thirds of the members of such council voted and of the intention to propose which not less than seven days' notice was given to every person who was a member of such council when such notice was given.
That does not mean that two-thirds of those members were present, but the point I want to make is that, under Section 4, the office of county manager is an office to which the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act applies, with certain exceptions. Section 4 says that
"... the said Act shall not apply to the said office and that Sections 6, 8, and 9 of the said Act shall apply to the said office subject to the subsequent provisions of this section."
Now, Section 11 of the Local Authorties (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, says:—
(1) Whenever there is in the opinion of any local authority or of the Minister reason to believe that an officer or servant of such local authority has failed to perform satisfactorily the duties of his position or has misconducted himself in relation thereto or is otherwise unfit to hold such position, such local authority or the Minister, as the case may be, may suspend such officer or servant from the performance of his duties while such alleged failure, misconduct or unfitness is being inquired into and the disciplinary action, if any, to be taken in regard thereto is being determined.
(2) The suspension of an officer or servant who is suspended under this section by a local authority or the Minister shall continue until terminated by the Minister.
I think that is sufficiently clear.
No doubt, that is in the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act of 1926, or, possibly, in subsequent Acts of other years, but does every man who hears about this Bill, or who reads the summaries about it or the criticisms of it, know anything about Section 11 of the Act of 1926? That is another thing which, I think, we ought to remove from our code of laws—legislation by reference. However, that is a matter which, I think, I am not entitled to raise in this connection. In any case, if the Minister thinks that my amendment will not serve a useful purpose, I do not wish to press it and will, by leave, withdraw it.
I know that the Senator's object is to try to make the position perfectly clear, but I think that, as the section stands, it should not be liable either to misconstruction or misconception.
There is another point that I see in this connection. Section 6 of the Bill says that "the county manager for a county shall not be removed by the council of that county without the sanction of the Minister." That would imply that he could be suspended without the sanction of the Minister, since sub-section (2) of the same section says that "the county manager for a county shall not be suspended or removed by the council of that county save by a resolution passed by such council for the purpose of such suspension or such removal," and so on. The effect of Senator Magennis's amendment is that no decision to suspend, or to remove, a county manager shall take effect unless and until it receives the sanction of the Minister. Now, the word "suspension" is omitted in the opening phrases of Section 6 in the Bill, and I should like to know what is the meaning of that.
Has not Senator Magennis withdrawn his amendment?
No, Senator, the amendment is not withdrawn yet.
Whether or not the Senator has withdrawn his amendment, I am only asking for a clarification of the clause.
It is the deliberate intention that the council should be able to suspend in the first instance. For example, you might come across a case where the council discovered that a man had embezzled money, and therefore they should be empowered to act at once in such a case; or there might be a case—I hope it would not occur very often—where a man might go off his head, and in such a case also it would be necessary to act at once. Of course, the Minister could terminate any such appointment, if he were not satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 6.
(2) The county manager for a county shall not be suspended or removed by the council of that county save by a resolution passed by such council for the purpose of such suspension or such removal and for the passing of which not less than two-thirds of the members of such council voted and of the intention to propose which not less than seven days' notice was given to every person who was a member of such council when such notice was given.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In sub-section (2), line 45, after the word "members" to insert the word "present".
I take a somewhat different view from the view held, apparently, by a number of members of the House, to the effect that a county council would be a collection of very ruthless people who can be always relied upon to treat their officials in a most cruel and heartless fashion. I do not think they are anything of the kind, and I should like to have some information from anybody who is experienced in these matters as to the number of officials of local authorities who, in the past 20 or 30 years, have been either suspended or dismissed by local authorities. I think that the last thing the local authorities do is to suspend or dismiss an official, even when they have every justification for doing so. The fact is that they just do not do it. My opinion, with regard to this section, is that a local authority will never either remove or suspend a county manager and that it is practically impossible, under this section as it stands, to effect such removal or suspension. The Minister has told us that he is going to reduce the number of members of county councils, by four or five in some cases, and even more in other cases; but the position here is that you must have two-thirds of the members of the council determining the suspension or removal of a county manager before that suspension or removal can be brought about. Now, I do not think you would ever get two-thirds of a council to suspend a man. We all know what would happen. You just manage to keep two or three of them away and, in any case, if they did not want to come, they would not come to the meeting anyway. A great many of us when it comes to a question of doing an unpleasant job, are inclined to take the line of least resistance, and just stay away. It is not a pleasant task to come in and pass judgment either for incapacity, inefficiency, dishonesty, or some other failing, on a very responsible man. People do not like to do it, and what I fear is that, even when the responsibility is on the people to do such a thing and when, perhaps, they should do it, not alone in the interests of the person concerned, but also in their own interests as ratepayers and the guardians of ratepayers, and representing the authority of the Local Government Department also, still you will not get them to face up to their job in such a case as that, because it is a rather unpleasant and even cruel job to suspend or remove an official holding a prominent position. I am asking the Minister to accept an amendment that two-thirds of the members present and voting, will be sufficient to suspend or remove an official. I have been watching local government for a fairly long time and I have seen sufficient officials—as, I am sure, other Senators have seen—but I have always observed that the local authorities take the part, even of people who are not efficient, and I suggest to the Minister that he can be quite convinced that the very last thing a local authority will want to do will be to take any such unpleasant action as the suspension or removal of a county manager.
They will not do it even when they ought to do it. They will put it on to the last second of the last minute of the last hour, and when it comes to the day to make the decision some of the people who ought to be there to do their job will not be there. I urge that the men who go there and take the responsibility of facing up to it, either saying for or against it, should make the decision, that what should be in the Bill is not two-thirds of the members of the council but two-thirds of the members of the council who are present. If you get two-thirds of the members of the council who are present to take the decision, that should be a decision and should be recognised as such. After all, a county manager is not going to be suspended unless he has gone off the rails very far indeed, but the peculiar thing about it in this country is that the man who runs off the rails can almost have as many people behind him as the fellow who keeps straight on all the time. We are inclined to give a considerable backing to the poor devil and every type of official like that. They are not so many indeed, but the strange thing is that they always have their supporters and they always will have. There are ways of getting support for these people. A certain amount of good nature in the Irish character is, I suppose, in part, responsible but, whatever the cause may be, I am quite convinced that you never will get two-thirds of the members of the council to take that decision. You could get two-thirds of the members present to take it, but the men who do not want to take this responsibility will stay away and leave it to the other people to do it and it just will not be done, and the man will be able to stay on even when he should be treated differently. It may be that eventually the Minister will have to take very strong action, sometimes very unpleasant, and sometimes having political reactions not a bit favourable to the Minister. I believe that is a wise amendment. I believe that the manager will have ample protection. I believe that he would have ample protection even in a bare majority of the council, because when he gets into harness and goes on with his work, the fundamental attitude of our people locally is to keep him and treat him well on the whole. They rarely turn out a man until he is long past his time for giving valuable service. I urge the Minister very strongly to accept that amendment.
I can scarcely believe that this is the same Senator Baxter we had here last week speaking on the Second Stage of this Bill, and if the Bill had not been drafted before he made his speech on the Second Reading I would say that it was as a result of that speech that this section was put into the Bill. It is quite obvious that the section is merely providing against what might possibly happen, and it is also quite obvious that there was no suggestion at all that the county councils as a whole were 1 per cent. as bad as they were represented by Senator Baxter on the Second Reading.
I did not make any such suggestion about the county councils on the Second Reading. I referred to a certain particular county.
Even if that happened in only one particular county it would be well to provide against it. While I do not believe that even in Senator Baxter's own county or his neighbouring county conditions are anything like what he represented them to be I see no reason why we should not provide against a possibility of such a condition of affairs cropping up.
There is one point about this, that you might have one abortive meeting after another. If you had a council of 60 you would require 40 in order to get two-thirds of a majority. Through the operation of what, Senator Baxter quite rightly says, is the feeling of all of us who serve on local boards to do the best we possibly can for our officials and ensure that in the end they get the biggest pensions they can, you might some day find after the seven days that there were only two people in the chamber. Those two people would take on themselves to suspend or remove the manager, but I think the manager still has the Minister's protection and unless the case put up by those two people was a very, very serious one, which would probably necessitate an inquiry on the part of the Minister, the man is protected. I am inclined to think that this amendment might help quick decisions and get over the very kind-hearted outlook we all have in regard to officials.
Is it not within the province of a Minister, if the council should evade its responsibility, to dismiss the manager and, equally, if a prejudiced council seeks to dismiss the manager, is it not within the province of the Minister to protect him?
The point strikes me in regard to Senator Baxter's amendment that you could possibly have a decision by a minority, not by a quorum even of the meeting. The wording of it would not be too happy. His amendment suggests putting in the word "present" after the word "members"—"not less than two-thirds of the members present of such council voted". If there were just a quorum present and if two-thirds of that quorum voted you would have a decision by, possibly, a small minority of the whole council, and I think that that would not be very advisable at all. A council could have no standing orders if such an amendment were inserted.
That is the whole point. I know a county council, for example, of 36. The quorum is usually one-fourth. That would be nine members. If those nine people met, six people out of 36 could suspend the manager. I think there are two sides of approach to this. There is the side who want—not saying that it is expressed in this House—to approach it from the way to make it easy to suspend a manager and the other side that want to make it difficult to suspend a manager. You have to get some sort of medium, and I think in a matter of this sort the Minister has the power in any case, under Section 11 of the Act of 1926 in certain circumstances to suspend. I think that in a matter of such importance as suspending or removing a manager there should be at least two-thirds of the council in favour of it.
Special circumstances might arise suddenly, but I do not think a council would have any difficulty whatever in getting that two-thirds majority. If it were a case of embezzlement or of a person, as I mentioned already, becoming insane, I do not think there would be any difficulty in getting the necessary majority. The point that Senator O'Donovan has made, however, is the kernel of the whole thing that is, that you might get a small minority in a position to suspend the manager.
The comment I make on Senator O'Donovan's remarks and the Minister's reply is that it may be that there are councils the attendance at which is so low that a quorum of only nine members out of 36 represents the attendance. I do not think the Minister said that was the case because I do not think it is a fact.
I am trying to deal with the facts as we know them. I do not know that there are any local authorities whose attendance would be anything as low, and I think that Senator O'Donovan drew a picture which is unreal and which is not related to the facts. I am not arguing that it could not happen; what I am arguing is that it does not happen. That is not the way the local authorities transact their business, at least down the country. You will find generally that two-thirds of the members are very regular attenders in the case of most of the councils, with a higher percentage in the case of quite a number of them.
Ninety-five or 99 per cent.
Perhaps some would be as high as 90 per cent., and sometimes 100 per cent.
I never suggested they would not.
The Senator did not suggest it, but he did suggest that a very small proportion of the total members were likely to suspend the manager. I do not think that is a situation that would be likely to arise at all and I did not anticipate that because, as I say, it is not related to the facts. I am not going to argue any further about it. I still have the view I had when I put down the amendment, and I am satisfied that it is closer to reality than anything I have heard against the amendment.
I make this concession to Senator O'Donovan, that the wording might be better and might have to be altered, but that is a trifle. I believe that you are building up certain trouble and, as Senator McGee says, if local authorities will not do their duty, the Minister will. My view is that local authorities ought to have power given to them in a workable kind of way, and I believe that when you give this power to two-thirds of a council, it may very well be a power which they will never be able to use. I want to give it to them in a workable way, and I do not believe that they are ever going to use that power in an unjust way. If they use it at all, it will be used more in favour of the individual concerned than otherwise. With regard to Senator Quirke, if he would like to come down to Monaghan, I will bring him, but I do not know whether he would be pleased with his visit or not.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
There is one matter which is not quite clear to me. What is the position of an elective body if it wants to show its displeasure with the administration? Can one of the five elective bodies in the county remove the manager? I am not quite clear as to whether that is covered in the Bill.
I am afraid the only thing they can do is to complain to the county council or the Minister.
Would it not be wise to insert some section to that effect on Report Stage?
I wonder how we could manage to provide that they could bring it to the council's notice. They could not have the power themselves of removal, and I do not know in what other way you could make the suggestion effective.
I have searched the Bill and I thought it was covered elsewhere.
There is no provision made for bringing complaints of that kind.
When I spoke of two or three commissioners or more, I did not mean that it should necessarily be made possible for them to apply in the counties in which they have been operating in the past, but that it should be made possible for them to apply in other counties where perhaps suitable men may not be available.
I can see the possibility of various counties not being able to provide suitable men, or men who would be as suitable as men who have acted in this capacity in the past.
I do not see how it can possibly be arranged at this stage. I might consider it but I do not see how it can be met. The only concession we are giving is in respect of secretaries of boards of health and county councils, and, if we extend it any further, it would be better to leave it open altogether.
There are two distinct services—the central service and the local authorities service. I should not like to see the Civil Service butting in on the local authorities. They can control them in every way but the local authority service up to the present has been a disjointed service. Every county is more or less on its own and this Bill seems to establish a definite service of local government. I think it was Senator The McGillycuddy who referred to it as a calling in the future to which students could aspire, and I should like to see them worked separately. I would entirely disagree with the suggestion of Senator Quirke that the Civil Service should be taken into the local service.
Question put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
(1) There shall be two assistant county managers for the County of Dublin.
(4) The Minister may by order, whenever he so thinks proper, direct in respect of a particular county that there shall be, for such county, an assistant county manager, or a specified number of assistant county managers, in addition to the county manager.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (1), line 5, to delete the word "two" and insert instead the word "four".
Would the Senator agree to consider this as governing amendments Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15?
Yes. I am afraid it is useless to move this at all, on account of the complexity of the situation. The Minister proposes a city and county manager, that is to say, the city manager shall be the county manager, and he is to have two assistant managers, but later on we find that one of the assistant manager positions is to be filled by express nomination. That is under Section 10, if I may be permitted to refer to it:
"If, immediately before the commencement of this Act, Timothy O'Mahony holds the office of Dun Laoghaire borough manager and town clerk, he shall, by virtue of this sub-section, be and he is hereby appointed to be a Dublin assistant city manager."
There is, therefore, only one city assistant manager position to be filled. I have studied carefully the answers made in the debate in Committee on March 14th in the Dáil, and I gather —maybe wrongly— that, broadly, the Minister's intention is that the city and county manager, who is the official bearing the ultimate responsibility, will be locally assisted. He does not say definitely that this will be so, but I take it from the remarks here and there in the debate, that the present manager of the borough council will be continued in that office, on account of his acquaintance with the work there and because he has already been initiated into the duties of managership. It would look as if the remaining city and county sub-manager would be relegated to do the work of the county. At first I was under the impression that that was the Minister's intention, but since the debate began to-day, I had an opportunity of reading again what the Minister said in that regard in reply to Deputy Cosgrave. He said:
"There is an amendment that these others will be appointed as assistant managers. Some of them may know more about the work of the county than perhaps a city manager would, and the city manager will have to be guided a good deal by the advice he will get. I do admit that the ultimate responsibility must rest on the city and county manager."
At first I was under the impression that that indicated the intention of the Minister to sub-divide the work in the way I have now indicated—the city and county manager for the entire county, including the borough and then the work of the Dún Laoghaire Borough Council relegated to the existing occupant of the office and the county dealt with by the other. It is not so definitely fixed as I had at first surmised. What I did gather from it is this, that in the present Bill, while the manager is the chief executive officer on whom the ultimate responsibility rests, the delegation would be delegation in regard to local areas. The amendments I have put down here are directed in quite a different direction. I am thinking of the Greater Dublin which will eventually come out of all this reorganisation and improvement of local government.
The Minister and some of my colleagues will perhaps recollect that there was, previous to the Greater Dublin Tribunal investigation under Mr. Justice Gavan Duffy, a Greater Dublin Commission which sat and took evidence for something like two years. On the report of that Commission was based the legislation in 1930 which created the present Greater Dublin and introduced the present managerial system. In that report, the organisation of functions amongst the chief officers which would be the most salutary was suggested and the delegation which was contemplated in that report was of the same type that was contemplated in the Report of the Gavan Duffy Commission, namely, that the delegation should be of services and not a distribution of local areas. I brought the Tribunal's Report with me and I shall read out the relative passage. It is as follows:
"It is essential that men of outstanding attainments with appropriate salaries should be obtained for these key positions".
What it designates key positions, are the positions occupied by the chief officials who are at the head of the essential services in the municipality.
Mr. Justice Gavan Duffy does not take the same categories as I have taken in the Greater Dublin Report, but they are approximately the same. The first and most important official, according to the Greater Dublin Commission, is to have charge of finance. He regarded the City Corporation officials or the manager as being in the relation of a Prime Minister to his Ministers, or as directors to a county council. We had in contemplation management by conference, no doubt, the responsibility in the last resort to be laid at the door of the manager, but the decision and the work in practice to be the outcome of conferences between these key position holders—the city treasurer, having very responsible duties to perform, then the officer in charge of constructive work—the construction of roads, highways, the opening up of streets, the provision of water services, sewerage, etc.—and then the officer in charge of medical services. Now, I thought that was the leading idea in the Minister's conception of the managerial system for the whole city, but in this particular instance what I fear is that the territorial working out of the system may block the further and, what to my conception, was the better arrangement for the city and the county in the years to come.
This is the passage I wanted particularly to quote from the report of the tribunal. It is paragraph 479:—
"We advocate a system whereby delegation shall be effected by way of services in lieu of the managerial authority being delegated in respect of different areas. If the former system were not adopted (that is, if the delegation in respect of areas were the system to be followed as it is followed in this Bill) it would be necessary to appoint local managers in the different sub-divisions of the metropolitan borough, and we feel that such a procedure would cut across the principle of unification of authority and control which we postulate as essential."
It is to bring these views once again under the notice of the Minister that I put down these amendments.
If we look at the basis of population, you will notice that there follows immediately after the first sub-section to which the amendment is moved, the following provision:—
There shall be three assistant county managers for the county of Cork.
The population as far as I could discover is about 170,000, and the population of the present Greater Dublin is well over 400,000. It is nearer to-day, I think, to 500,000. On that basis alone there is some justification for asking for more than two assistant managers for the work of the combined city and county. With regard to these elements of complexity—the enormous amount of public work to be done, to be designed, to be provided for in the municipalities—there is also the further fact that the type of services in the non-urbanised regions of the county is completely different. In our Greater Dublin Report, we had to take into account, semi-prophetically, how much of the area in the proximity of the city and the townships of that time was likely to undergo speedy organisation. That meant naturally going over the ground day after day, inspecting plans for the development of estates, and work of that sort. In the report we were very careful not to include the area that would remain, we believed, an agricultural area. I take it that was a commonsense procedure. Between the passing of the Act and the carrying out of the scheme formulated in the Gavan Duffy Tribunal Report there will be quite an interval of years. In that period there will be most valuable time and opportunity for any adjustment, not merely to services as between the two regions, the agricultural or county region and the urbanised region, but there will be an opportunity also for dealing with the existing officials and readjusting them to the altered conditions.
It seems to me to be useless to press these arguments in favour of the realisation of the ideal of the Greater Dublin tribunal of one manager, one responsible unified authority and control, and delegation, according to the necessities of the situation and the wisdom and experience of the manager. I think it is very important to remember that the manager could never shoulder the entire work. It would be impossible for him to be so busy. He must really be director-in-chief. With all respect, I submit to the Minister that what I gather from a careful study of his replies in the debate in Committee in the Dáil, is that he wishes to leave the county manager with an absolutely free hand and that applies equally to the city manager. He replies, for instance, on one occasion: "I cannot answer that", and again: "The manager will determine that", and so on. With great respect, I submit that we are to be dependent on the ability, devoted service and high character of the county manager, but it is not good policy to leave everything exclusively to his discretion.
I think that just as in other Acts of Parliament if the whole course is mapped out and an outline clearly manifested of the policy desired by the Government to be followed by those to whose lot it falls to carry out the work, there should be a specification of services and of the mode of providing for the direction of these services given by the Oireachtas itself, or by the Minister, in any case, so that it is still possible if the Minister so desires— that is to say if he favoured it—to have the idea of the Greater Dublin tribunal of unification of control with subdivision of local managerial functions. If he had any view that ultimately there would be this delegation of services, the easy way over from what is contemplated in the present Bill to that new and better arrangement—I submit it would be a new and better arrangement—is by the provision here and now of four managers.
I do not care whether they are called assistant managers, or directors of the different services, so long as it is clearly and specifically indicated to the manager that this is the organisation over which he is to take control and that the policy of the national Government in regard to local government is that those are the key services and they are to be organised in this fashion. Keeping my mind not so much on the policy of the managerial system in the present Bill applied to conditions that are now regnant, but to the policy of keeping the door open, or, to put it in another way, to have no door closed against the realisation eventually of the idea of Greater Dublin, it is in that interest that I am inflicting myself on the House in such detail and at such length.
If you keep to the scheme of a manager, plus two assistants, giving one of them the control of a determinate area and the other of the remaining area, then you cannot avoid having non-unification. You have plurality, you have multiplication, and, no matter how much you desire it otherwise, you will have multiplication of officials. That is inevitable, and it means that there is the simulacrum in the City and County of Dublin of the managerial system, because they will really be three managers, each with the centre from which he radiates control, marked out for him legally. I would appeal to the Minister to abandon what I see only as a tendency towards this in his speeches in the Dáil, to abandon the local area ideal and keep rather to that of delegation of services. The first step to that is secured in making a clear plan for the differentiation of functions a part of this legislation.
It is obvious to everyone that for the right government of the municipality there must be someone who is professionally capable and therefore professionally to be made responsible for the care of public health and public assistance, and, as we who have eyes to see are all aware, for the great local development of the city in all directions and all places through the really marvellous expansion in the north, south, east and west. For that, the work of the city architect, and of planning and engineering, becomes of very vital importance, and the right handling of it is of outstanding importance, not merely for the benefit of the capital of the State, but for the benefit of the State itself. Suppose the scheme, as I perhaps misinterpret it, is a scheme of one manager called the city and county manager and two assistants, no matter what they are called, one in the borough and one in the city. With that plan there is bound to be friction. It is already alleged that there is bound to be overlapping, multiplication of offices. Any increase of rates on a population incensed by the policy of the thing will be put down to the managerial idea, and not to the wrong method of using it. The result will be a set-back, and therefore I put it to the Minister that he should guard against prejudicing the success of this great scheme by a flaw of this kind which might militate against it just because a certain part of the scheme might be in the blaze of the searchlight or the limelight.
Undoubtedly, the manager here will be the manager for the city and county, but it does not follow that the person who is now manager in Dún Laoghaire will become the assistant manager for that area. The assistant manager may have certain duties assigned to him from time to time, and even if whoever is the present secretary of the Dublin County Council is selected as assistant manager, it does not follow that he will be assistant manager for the county. These offices will be, from time to time, interchangeable, and it will be up to the city manager to assign these people to different duties. It is not a question of drawing up hard-and-fast rules, and leaving the city manager to look after the city. As the Bill is drafted, there is a certain flexibility about it in that regard. On the other hand, it can be said that there is not any more fusion in this than there is in other cases where two counties are grouped. There is a certain number of counties that are grouped, one with another, and in these cases the manager of one county is also the manager of another. I appreciate very much Senator Magennis's point of view, to the effect that we should bear in mind what will be ultimately Greater Dublin, and the organisation that would be there, but I do not feel that this is closing the door, or even putting up any barrier, to whatever might be done when the time should be suitable. As a matter of fact, we do not regard this as a suitable time to go ahead with the Greater Dublin plan, but I do not think there is anything in the Bill to close the door or to put up any barrier against any developments when times might be more suitable. The Bill, however, is not an attempt at a solution of the Greater Dublin problem, but it may bring the County and the City of Dublin into closer contact, and I think it will mean that there will be closer contact between the county and city than if you were to appoint one county manager and a city manager as well. However, I should like to consider this matter between now and the Report Stage, with a view to seeing whether or not there could be another assistant manager or something on the lines Senator Magennis suggested. I want to say at once, however, that this is not an attempt to solve the problem of Greater Dublin, but, at the same time, there is nothing in this Bill to close the door or to raise any barrier, as I have said, against the solving of that problem when the time comes for it to be put into operation.
In view of what the Minister has said, perhaps I might be permitted to withdraw these amendments.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I take it that that would include amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
There are two amendments in my name, amendments Nos. 9 and 10. Let us take amendment No. 9 first. I move amendment No. 9.
To delete sub-section (4).
I do not understand the Minister's point here. He has set out in the Bill the various areas to which managers and assistant managers are to be assigned and he is taking power to himself to decide that an assistant manager must be appointed by any local authority to any area in which, in his judgment, he thinks there ought to be an assistant manager. Now, the judgment of the Minister and his advisers may be absolutely sound from their point of view, but there are always two points of view, and I fail to understand what the Minister has in mind in taking this power in the Bill at this stage. First of all, I object to any legislation of this nature. You are going to have a certain number of managers and assistant managers, and we know that, but, according to this section, the Minister takes power to appoint one or two or perhaps more assistant managers in all these areas. As I say, I do not like this business of legislating by order, and that is what this really amounts to. I do not believe that the Minister feels that there is any necessity for this sub-section at all. As a matter of fact, I think that we could do quite well without managers in a number of counties, and I do not believe that there is going to be very much improvement as a result of having these managers appointed, but if, in addition to the manager, we are going to have assistant managers directed to be appointed by the Minister, where are we going to be? Undoubtedly, the people who are bearing the burden of the local rates have got certain benefits; we have built up a tremendous amount of local organisation, but we are paying for it, and, mind you, eventually we shall reach the point where we shall have to stop. I do not believe in this sub-section. I should much prefer if the Minister would say that he was going to appoint a certain number of managers or assistant managers in Cavan, Monaghan, Meath, or the various other counties, but this business of sending down an official to appoint an assistant manager, in my opinion, is all wrong.
If the Senator's amendment were to be accepted, it would mean that you could not appoint an assistant manager except in Dublin, Cork and Dun Laoghaire. The Senator's next amendment proposes to insert the words "after consultation with the council". If the Senator will look at sub-section (9) of this section he will see that, before making an order under this section in respect of a county, the Minister must consult with the council of such county.
When it is brought to the Minister's notice that the manager is not able to perform the duties, the Minister then consults with the council as to the appointment of an assistant manager.
I am dealing with the amendment to delete the sub-section.
You can take it that the council will have to satisfy that it is necessary before the appointment is made. In the Dáil I was trying to indicate, so far as I could, the places where assistant managers would be appointed, but that you could not tie yourself down, that some time in the future it might be necessary to appoint an assistant manager in some other county. That is all.
Would the council have the authority to make the appointment?
While I can see the Minister's point of view, I see what is taking place in my own county. We were one of the first three or four in the country to appoint a county medical officer of health, and there was a certain organisation built around that office. Now I see, as some of us anticipated at the beginning, that the board of health are beginning to realise that the expenditure on this scheme is very considerable indeed, and what is actually taking place now is discussion about cutting down the scheme. That is what you get by going too far and, naturally, in view of the dimensions to which local expenditure has swollen to-day, a great many people are very fearful of all this. They cannot help being fearful. You could go on all down the country employing new officials every day, but unless they were to get more money to spend, there is nothing for them to do. Somebody has to pay. The people in the backwoods, working to get the money, are afraid of this sort of thing.
That may be the Senator's experience of one county, but in a county I happen to know the difficulty is to try to hold them from appointing additional officers.
They have got to be held; that is the point. May I say just one word? Taking these two sub-sections (4) and (9), together, I think (4) would read more happily to the public mind if the Minister put in a phrase like—the wording is not correct—"on the recommendation of a council or a member of an elective body." If he re-drafted it in that way, I think it would be better. Then I come to No. (9). What does the word "consult" mean?
It means "consult"—nothing beyond that.
You consult with me, and I tell you exactly what I think, but finally the Minister can go back to his office and, no matter what the county council says, if he thinks an assistant manager is desirable there, quite regardless of funds, he will appoint him. I am not attempting to wreck in any way, but "consult" is a very vague word as to the result which the consultation produces afterwards. I have got an open mind about this, and that is my contribution towards the debate.
It is used a lot in Acts—consultation between Ministers
Consultation with the Minister for Finance, for example, is not the same thing as consultation with a county council.
I agree that where you have responsibility there must be power. There is going to be a responsibility on the Minister. The responsibility is imposed upon the Minister to consult. If he is going to have responsibility, then, after he has consulted, he ought to make up his mind and face any criticism on it. I think if you do not have it as it is, you must merely put all the powers in the hands of the council.
Supposing the council, as frequently happens, disagree with the Minister, it would subsequently be within the power of that council to refuse to finance the scheme should the Minister go ahead with it.
I think there is still the word "mandamus." That has not gone out of commission. That is still there.
They must strike a proper rate.
Would there be any point in putting it to the Minister to consider an amendment whereby the request would come from the local authority for the appointment of an assistant county manager? I understand that you are making only a county manager for Galway. I realise that there is a problem there. I realise, too, that there would be no difficulty in a county like Galway making such a request, but I think there is more sense and wisdom about that. After all, when people are paying they like to have some choice. If the Minister is paying he likes to have a word in the choice, he likes to have something to say about it. The Minister decides whether or not an assistant manager is necessary, and he is going to have him selected in Dublin and sent down, and the local people are just to pay. It is not right. That is my feeling. The principle is unsound. We are either sensible and practical down the country, and we are entitled to some trust, or we are incompetent and, if so, there is no hope for the future of the country. I think that it would be a far wiser course, and that the whole working would be harmonious if the local people had the power to request the appointment of an assistant manager. I say again that some county councils may have faults, and that some individual members of the councils are not up to the level of others, but there is no question about it that there is a great number of our county councillors whom you would be proud to know. That is true in every county. You cannot treat such people as if they were children. I am not a member of a county council, but I have had close contact with them for a great many years, and I believe that if the Minister were ready to approach it like that, it would be the right method.
The Senators do not realise that there is a statutory duty being imposed by this on the Minister. He shall consult. Suppose the word "consult" were replaced by "shall invite representations from the county council" I daresay they would be delighted with the clause, but because the ordinary, normal word "consult" is used, they are up in arms. It is an unfortunate oversight in some of these criticisms that they forget the Dáil, they forget the Oireachtas. Suppose the Minister did not consult with the local county council in the matter, the allegation would properly be made that he acted in a high-handed, autocratic fashion. If he is obliged by this sub-section to get the mind of the county council on the matter, suppose he wantonly ignored it—let us make that insulting supposition—questions might be asked about it in the Dáil. All sorts of censures could be moved on the Minister for his action in the matter. So it is not then so bad a situation as we are asked to believe.
Mr. Johnston
A suggestion has been made here that the invitation should come from the council to the Minister to make an additional appointment. From my own experience in my own county, and my experience of other counties, I know that any project, any scheme, any suggestion made by a Minister, a member of a council or anyone else that involves any additional expenditure, anything on the rates or on the people, is opposed and opposed by a number who, while they may not be numerically very strong, are very voluble, and appeal very forcibly to whatever ratepayers may have to foot the bill, with the result that, in some cases, schemes that would be for the benefit of the people of the country are held up for years. Senator Baxter mentioned his own county and the case of a public health scheme, the appointment of a county medical officer of health, which was held up. There was delay also in the case of other counties, and the scheme in my own county was also held up for the reason that I have given, that a number of elected representatives in the county raised the question of the cost on the rates. Some members took the view that the appointment of a county medical officer of health was a form of insurance, and it was urged that it was better to provide for the health and the improvement of the conditions of the youth than to have to pay for them in institutions such as county hospitals, mental hospitals and sanatoria. So long as there is consultation with the councils, my view is met.
When this Bill was going through the Dáil, some Deputies, who were opposed to the managerial system altogether, spoke of it as being another way of flooding the country with officials, and they said that we would have assistant managers all over the country. I had the thing examined as best I could at the time to see if I could indicate where assistant managers would be required and, as a result, we have decided on Cork, Tipperary, amalgamating the two ridings, and Dublin. At the moment, we do not foresee that assistant managers will be required anywhere else, but I can foresee urgings by councils themselves in this respect. From the experience I have at the moment, particularly with regard to hospitals, I can say that the inclination is to have more officials. That is my experience at the moment —pressure from below—and we have to try to stop it. I believe that in the case of many councils that pressure will be forthcoming.
On the other hand, I heard a Deputy say, as I thought, rather recklessly, that they could wreck the Bill. That is the sort of thing that one has to look out for, too. The county which that Deputy represents is very small, and it is unlikely that an assistant manager will be required there, but in the case of a large county, where the manager wanted assistance, if you had a council composed of people of that type, or of that viewpoint, lest anybody should misunderstand my use of the word "type", they might withhold from the manager the assistance to which he was entitled.
I think that what Senator Baxter forgets altogether is that this money which is spent in a county is not all a local charge. Half the amount in every county is contributed by the Central Fund and the Minister is answerable to the Oireachtas for the expenditure of that money and for seeing that the expenditure is kept as low as possible. If an assistant manager is appointed, surely we are going to have questions in the Dáil as to the grounds for such an appointment. When the Bill was passing through the Dáil, as I say, I tried to find out where it would be necessary to appoint assistant managers. Those places are now indicated in the Bill and, at the moment, we do not visualise that any other assistant managers will be required, but we cannot cut out altogether all power to appoint assistant managers, if it becomes necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 11 to 15 inclusive not moved.
Section 10 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill."
There are some points which I should like to have clarified. Sub-section (2) sets out that every office of assistant county manager shall be an office to which the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, applies. For the first appointments, does that mean that the appointment shall be made by the Local Appointments Commissioners and that there are no restrictions in relation to the appointment of secretaries of boards of health or county councils who have not already been appointed? Otherwise, this will be open to all comers, under the 1926 Act.
The preceding section governs that.
It deals with Dublin and one official is named. It is the other appointments which are not definitely restricted?
Does the Senator mean outside Dublin?
They will be appointed in the ordinary way by the Local Appointments Commissioners. There is preference given to managers if they are secretaries and are suitable, but that does not apply in the case of assistant managers.
Sub-section (2) then means that, outside County Dublin, these assistant county managerial positions are open to all comers?
Yes; there is no preference in anyone's favour.
I should like further to get some clarification of sub-section (4), because one of the assistants is nominated by a section already passed, and it seems to me that there is only one other vacancy. I should like an explanation of sub-section (4).
All that it refers to is temporary appointments.
It does not seem to me to be necessary to have any temporary appointments there because, under a section already passed, one of the assistant managers is nominated, while the other——
I do not like to say that anybody might die, but we cannot ignore these possibilities. That is all it safeguards.
That possibly explains it. I could not understand what it meant because one was already appointed and the other practically appointed, if suitable.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."
I am not very skilled in this kind of thing, but when you take these sections together, you find a manager and certain assistant managers to whom the manager, if he desires to delegate any functions, is obliged to delegate these functions. When this Bill is passed, will this section not be construed in this way, that the county manager will be unable to delegate functions to any person other than these mentioned persons?
That being so, surely, since the Bill is experimental, it would be better to leave the county manager a certain degree of elbow room and to enable him to delegate functions to, for example, certain chief executive officers to find out what the necessity for delegating powers would be when the thing is actually working, rather than to tie him to certain people now, and prevent him from delegating functions to any other person whatever. I know that the Minister is endeavouring to make the best arrangement he can, but, since the matter is experimental, would it not be better that the county manager, looking at the work as it arises, should have more elbow room to make arrangements from time to time to suit the circumstances, because I take it that, under the ordinary law, he will always be subject to inspection and to some degree of ministerial control?
What the Senator wants to get is the very thing which the Bill is aimed at not giving. It would never do to have these managerial functions given to somebody not definitely set out there as assistant manager. That is the object in appointing an assistant manager.
To my mind, Senator Hayes's point borders on what Senator Magennis has referred to already—the delegation of duties— when we were speaking of areas. It was suggested that certain public health matters be delegated to the county medical officer, and that engineering matters be delegated to the borough surveyor or chief engineer. A discussion on those lines has taken place already. It is a thing which raises great possibilities for some future time. A clerical officer may get promotion from year to year into a position in which he is chief over medical officers, and all professional and legal, medical, and other public health officials. In virtue of his office as county manager he is chief of all these. We have already discussed such a managerial system through the different callings, and I think that the Minister has already promised—so far as County Dublin is concerned—to look into that matter. Apparently that scheme of organisation is in the minds of some Senators.
There is some difference between the Minister and Senator O'Donovan. Senator O'Donovan tells us that the Minister is going to look into the point, but the Minister quite clearly tells us—and I understand him quite well—that he is not going to look into the point, and that the Bill is framed to prevent it.
I was referring to the amendments by Senator Magennis.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I do not think that the two things are connected.
We cannot have somebody going into an urban council office and saying that authority was delegated to him the night before: we must have somebody well known.
Would there not be chief executive officers in that position?
Those functions cannot be distributed amongst officers.
Surely this does not mean that the functions cannot be carried out by somebody under direction?
Question put and agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
(2) Where a county manager is on vacation, and also where a county manager is so incapable as aforesaid, and such incapacity is due to absence from his county, the power of appointing a deputy county manager may be exercised by such county manager after consultation with the chairman of the county council before and in contemplation of such vacation or such incapacity (as the case may be), but in every other case, that is to say, where a county manager is so incapable as aforesaid owing to illness or suspension, and also where a county manager is on vacation or is so incapable as aforesaid owing to absence from his county and a deputy county manager is not appointed under this section before such vacation or incapacity, or, having been so appointed, is removed under this section or dies or resigns during such vacation or incapacity, the power of appointing a deputy county manager under this section shall be exercisable at any time during such vacation or incapacity only by the chairman of the county council.
(3) In every case the power of removing a deputy county manager under this section shall be exercisable only by the Minister or by the chairman of the county council with the consent of the Minister.
I move amendments Nos. 16 and 17:—
16. In sub-section (2), line 42, to delete the words "the chairman of."
17. In sub-section (3), line 57, to delete the words, "the chairman of."
Sub-section (2) contains the words, "after consultation with the chairman of the county council." It says that where a county manager is on vacation, and also where he may be incapable "as aforesaid," the power of appointing a deputy county manager may be exercised by such county manager after consultation with the chairman of the county council.
My amendment seeks to impose on him an obligation to consult with the county council instead of with the chairman of the county council. I do not understand the principle of consultation with the chairman and the ignoring of the other people. I feel it is not right and that it places the chairman in a very invidious position in relation to his colleagues in the county council. I do not understand why one member of the council should be taken out and consulted while the council in general is not consulted, and do not know what it will mean in the future. When one knows how the chairman happens, frequently, to get into that position in the county council, one knows there are all kinds of reasons why it should not be the chairman alone. If you are going to consult the members of the county council, the whole county council should be consulted. I feel definitely that it is something the chairman would not like to have put upon him and, if he did have it put upon him, I think he would feel disposed to consult his council. If he were a wise man he would. Apparently this is something to be done only between the county manager and the chairman. I would urge the Minister to delete the words "with the chairman", and leave it to read "after consultation with the county council".
I am not very keen as to whether the words are taken out or not, but I would remind Senator Baxter that it is quite a usual practice, to-day or at any other time, for the secretary in a similar position to the county manager to consult with the chairman. It is not so easy to call a meeting of the council and bring members from all over the county. The practice has gone on in my county for years and, during all that time, I have never seen any objection to it and, as a result, I am quite satisfied.
I think the section is all right as it stands. The chairman is really the representative of the county council and, when the manager says he wants to appoint somebody during his absence or sickness, the chairman can always say he is going to consult his council before giving an answer. If, on the other hand, he does not consult him, and does some outrageous thing, he can be put out at the next election.
It may arise on some occasion, but it is the practice in the county boroughs to consult the mayor or lord mayor when the case is urgent. It may happen that the council may not be in session, and the matter may be urgent; then the easiest way is to get the chairman.
I am quite unconvinced. In reply to Senator Byrne, who says the secretary consults the council chairman, I would say that he is the chairman of his county council, and he knows what the practice is. He would consult with the secretary of the county council about urgent and not very important matters of administration which may arise between one meeting and another. Where one is going to make an appointment, however, which may be an appointment to a permanent post in the future—that is not at all impossible—I believe it is something which should not be done by the chairman only. It seems to be that the question of having the appointment made by the chairman only is not right.
On a point of order, it is almost impossible to hear many of the speakers. Three Senators here cannot hear Senator Byrne. The House is so arranged that speakers turn the other way.
It is a recognised fact that the county manager gets his holidays. He may take a week now, and a fortnight some other time. When he is on vacation, he tells the chairman he is appointing the accountant or somebody else like that to carry out his duties.
I can bear out Senator Byrne's remarks. The chairman may appreciate his position or not, but, if he does, he must be careful, as people are far more apt to displace him than to displace a Minister.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."
I take it that the responsibility in the case of the deputy manager applies exactly in the same way as that of the assistant manager. It seems rather contradictory that, whereas the Minister decides on the salary of the manager, when a deputy is appointed the county council do it. Is there any particular reason for that? It is only a small point.
I do not think so. There is not very much involved in it.
We thought the Minister would decide the salary in both cases.
He will have to approve of the remuneration fixed by the council.
Is there not something terribly contradictory about it all? When I was arguing a little while ago that the request for an assistant ought to come from the council, the House said "no" and the Minister is accordingly to arrange for the appointment of an assistant. The Minister will also fix the salary of the county manager but when it comes to a question of fixing salary of a deputy, the council are to be allowed to fix it.
It may be only a question of a week or two. They can fix whatever remuneration they wish but that is subject to sanction.
The council do not appoint a manager but when it is a question only of filling a trifling job, the council have the liberty to do it.
It may be urgent. It may have to be done quickly and they would not have time to consult the Minister.
The Minister apparently visualises that these deputies will be in office for a short time. Suppose the manager is ill for six months and that the county council said nothing until he came back. What would the Minister's attitude be to a deputy in that case?
The manager, I presume, would appoint his deputy in case of vacation or short illness.
I think provision ought to be made to deal with these matters if deputies are going to be appointed for more than a certain period.
These are very rare cases.
Yet, provision is being made for all sorts of things such as cases where people die and I think that this is a matter that ought to be provided for.
The system has been in operation for a long time in the boroughs and no such situation like that arose.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
(1) Neither the council of a county nor any elective body shall directly exercise or perform any power, (other than a power which is vested by law (including this Act) in such council or body and is by this Act expressly made exercisable by resolution of such council or body), function, or duty of such council or body in relation to the officers or servants of such council or body, or the control, supervision, service, remuneration, privileges, or superannuation of such officers or servants or any of them.
(2) Subject to the provisions of the next preceding sub-section of this section, every council of a county and every elective body shall directly exercise and perform the powers, functions, and duties (if any) of such council or body in relation to each of the several matters mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act.
(3) Save as is otherwise provided by this section, the Minister, whenever he so thinks proper, may by order direct that the powers, functions, and duties of every or of any particular council of a county or of every elective body of a specified class or of any particular elective body in relation to any matter specified in such order (not being a matter mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act) shall be exercised and performed directly by such council or such body, as the case may be.
(4) The Minister, whenever he so thinks proper, may revoke or amend any order made by him under the next preceeding sub-section of this section or any order (made under this sub-section) amending any such order.
(5) Whenever and so long as an order made by the Minister under this section is in force, the powers, functions and duties specified in such order shall be exercised directly by the council or councils or the elective body or bodies in respect of which such order is made.
(6) No order made by the Minister under this section shall extend or apply to any power, function or duty to which the first sub-section of this section applies.
(7) Every appointment by the council of a county of a rate collector for a rate collection district lawfully established in such county shall be made by such council directly by resolution, but no such appointment shall have effect unless or until approved of by the Minister.
(8) Every power, function or duty of the council of a county or of an elective body which is required by this section to be exercised directly by such council or body shall, for the purposes of this Act, be a reserved function of such council or body, and the expression "reserved function" shall in this Act be construed and have effect accordingly.
I move amendment No. 18:—
To delete sub-section (7).
In spite of Section 19, which we shall come to presently, under which services, which is the one thing which matters, are to be controlled by the manager—and services cover appointment, duties and dismissal—we find the Minister reserving the function of the appointment of rate collector for the county council. This is a very important matter because the utilisation of rate collectors is the most expensive means you could possibly adopt in any county for the collection of rates. We had that system in operation for years in my county and then we suddenly decided to drop it. I take a little credit to myself and the county secretary for initiating a new departure. We evolved a system whereby all the rates were collected by post and they came in as well as rates have ever come in in County Kerry.
The system was practically an absolute failure.
No, it was just the opposite.
I am afraid the Senator does not know as much about County Kerry as I do. Another point about rate collectors is, that from the point of view of national uplift it is a very unwise system to have a rate collector going around after a small farmer, watching him after the fair and collecting a bob or two out of his 12/- rates. Mark you, we are trying to produce an uplift in a hundred different ways in this country and we still stick to that sort of system. A third aspect is that rate collectors, if they are appointed by the county council, can give rise to a system of patronage which the whole of this Bill is an attempt to check. That patronage is often exercised in very undesirable ways, ways that are undesirable so far as the ratepayers' pockets are concerned. I certainly cannot see why this question of rate collectors is left alone, whereas all the remaining servants of the county council are put under the control or are appointed by and dismissed by the manager. Another point is that if you make the position of rate collector a permanent office the rate collector is pensionable. If he is elected as a temporary officer, there is always a further resolution passed by the county council, which finally the manager has got to honour, to make him a permanent officer. You get all this pushing up of the rates against which we are all trying to fight and which we hope this Bill will succeed in preventing. I do not think there is any reason why these appointments should be reserved for the council.
Rate collectors are not officers to whom the Officers and Employees Act of 1926 applies, and as a rule they are persons who are long past school-leaving age. They are, therefore, not persons who would be suitable for competitive examination. In addition to that, they are subject to certain regulations. They must provide solvent sureties and insurance. In addition, they are subject not only to the control of the manager, but to inspection by a rates inspector. I do not agree with Senator The McGillycuddy that in Kerry the system of collection by post was a success. I think it was a failure. The collection might have been bad before, but it is very much worse now.
My information is that it is very much worse since. If a rate collector is inefficient in carrying out his duties, the manager can have him removed. I do not know that it can be considered a bad thing to have rate collectors going around to houses to collect rates. In some cases it is the only way to collect them. If income-tax collectors can go about to collect income-tax, I do not see why rate collectors cannot go around to collect local taxes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 19:—
To delete the section.
I put down this amendment to make a protest, if indeed there is any point in making a protest to the Minister. He is the most inexorable Minister I have come across.
You are taking away all functions from the council.
I have not achieved it. I have put down this amendment to make a protest against the section. Apparently, while the council will have the obligation put upon it to levy a rate, and to see that the rate is collected, it is not going to have anything to say in regard to the services, control, supervision, privileges, or anything of that sort.
I presume that you are going to have a certain number of the people back again who have been accustomed to contact with the existing officials. Staffs will continue to do their work, as they have been doing it, and they are going to be put in the position that their local councillors will have nothing whatever to say to the people in their employment or service regarding their remuneration, privileges, or anything else. I think that is a very undesirable condition of things. I know it has been argued that it is a much more effective way, and that you would get more effective work and have more efficient control by the manager over the staff. That argument presupposes to me that there has been no such thing as efficient control up to the present, and it is something with which I cannot at all agree.
On the whole, we have been getting good service from the staffs of local authorities. I do not say that there have been no black sheep. There are always a certain number of them in every walk of life, but I say that this is definitely not the way to get harmonious work done and to get that kind of understanding necessary if local administration is to be sympathetically carried on. It seems to me that you are going to cut away all the contact between members of the staff and members of the local body except through the county manager. The county manager is to handle the staffs himself, and while it is to be presumed he is going to be a broadminded individual in that matter, it is quite conceivable that he may be just the contrary, and it is also conceivable that you may get a county manager dealing rather unjustly or harshly with the staff. The county manager will not only have the ordinary clerical staffs under his control, but he will also control officials like the county surveyor and the secretary of the board of health. To cut those staffs away from the members of the county council is, in my opinion, an unwise step.
If they have any grievances about their privileges or salaries, they are to have no right to discuss them with members of the council that is levying the rate and seeing that it is collected. I think that is not right. You may argue on one hand that you are going to get more efficient work, but that, as I have suggested, presupposes that the work has not been efficiently done up to the present. I think that is something that we could hardly accept. I do not think that there is much room for greater efficiency in the way that local authorities' staffs will do their work in the future, but I feel that this change in the relationship between the staffs and the members of the council is unsound and will probably prove not to be workable.
I would like to ask the Minister a question.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator can ask it on the section. We are now on Senator Baxter's amendment.
I can hardly agree with Senator Baxter in his line of argument. While I do agree with what he says that the services contributed by the staffs generally have been very satisfactory and highly efficient, I entirely approve of the idea that the control of the staffs should be left to the manager completely.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am afraid that there is a tendency to turn this into a Second Reading debate. We are on the section, and this is a matter which could be debated at a later stage of the Bill.
I want to say, with all due respect, Sir, that I have seen times when disciplinary action was entirely necessary to maintain a higher standard of efficiency, and there cannot be proper discipline if a certain member of the staff misconducts himself and the county secretary is unable to take action because of certain friends of this individual among the county councillors. I believe the manager can exercise better control over the entire staff, and that we would have a higher standard of efficiency and an improvement on the present conditions.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
That has nothing to do with this section.
I do not want to say anything on this amendment. It really goes to the root of the Bill, and we had all this out on the Second Reading.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
It can, if desired, be raised on a later stage. Is the amendment withdrawn?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
I want to ask a question on this section. There is no mention in the Second Schedule of certain important powers exercised by the county council—for instance, the electoral college for the panel members of the Seanad, and the election of representatives of insured persons to the committee of management of the National Health Insurance Society. Am I right in assuming that that is covered by Section 21 of the Second Schedule?
These are covered by other Acts.
There is power in the Bill to elect through other bodies.
I think it is rather an important point.
Paragraph 12 of Second Schedule would cover parliamentary and local elections.
Would it cover elections to the National Health Insurance Society?
Section 34 also deals with appointments to other bodies.
I think that does not exactly cover it.
In any case, if Senator Mrs. Concannon makes that point, I will have it looked into and considered on the Report Stage. Perhaps she will give me a note about it.
Question put, and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
(5) A county manager shall not affix the official seal of the council of a county or of an elective body to any document save in the presence of the chairman of such council or body or, in the case of a vacancy in the office of such chairman or the case of the illness or absence of such chairman, in the presence of a member of such council or body nominated in that behalf by such council or body.
I move amendment No. 20, standing in Senator Quirke's name:—
In sub-section (5), page 12, to delete lines 24 and 25 and the word "member" in line 26 and to substitute the words "the presence of a member or any of a number of members".
It is a purely drafting amendment.
Yes, this is just a drafting amendment, and is designed to make the matter more flexible in the case of documents, warrants, and so on.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(5) Every county manager shall keep, in respect of the council of his county, a register in which shall be entered a copy of every order made by him under this section for such council, and such county manager shall, at every meeting of such council, produce for the inspection of the members of such council so much of such register as contains any such orders so made since the next previous meeting of such council.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In sub-section (5), line 16, page 12, to delete the words "for the inspection of" and insert instead the words "and read to".
My point is that the manager should produce and read for the members of the council the orders which he makes. I think that, in this regard, it is not enough for the manager to make orders and just have them registered in a register or minute book, or whatever you like to call it, throw that book on the table, and let the councillors read it or not or take an interest in it or not. I think that the obligation should be imposed on the manager to let the members of the council know what is being done from one meeting to another. If, between meetings, a number of orders have been made by the manager, I think that at least it should be obligatory on him to produce and read out these orders, or at least the substance of these orders. Merely to produce the book and give no other indication of what has been done, in my opinion, is not sufficient, and I think that the more contact that you have between the manager, in his active and actual work, and the members of the council, the better it will be. It is very desirable that we should have harmony between the manager and the council, and I think that there will be greater harmony between the manager and the council if the manager keeps his council informed as to what he is doing. I suggest that my amendment would help towards that end.
Sometimes there might be long intervals between meetings of a council and numerous orders might be made in the meantime, and I think that to read out all these things would be a waste, not alone of the manager's time, but of the time of the council. The register will be there, and any member of the council can get a copy of these orders, and the manager is bound to supply them. As a matter of fact, in the case of some city or borough or county councils the managers have found it practicable to circulate these orders to the members of the council, although there is no obligation upon them to do so. We are not putting that obligation on the manager, since any member of the council can get the orders if he wishes to do so.
I think that it would be rather desirable to have something like this in the Bill, because very often, when you go into a council meeting, you may not have the time to look up the particulars of whatever orders may be on the table. I think that these orders should be circulated, and I do not see any reason why there should not be something to that effect in the Bill.
Well, perhaps that could be done.
Could it not be arranged under their own by-laws that the manager should be instructed to circulate these orders?
Perhaps they could, but I am not sure about that.
Would it not be covered by the by-laws?
I do not think they would have power to make a by-law in that connection.
Well, I think it is rather important that, if any order is made, it should be circulated.
In practice, it is done in the case of a number of councils.
I think that what generally happens is that most of the councillors do not turn up until after the order is read, and I rather thought that the circulating of these orders was the correct thing.
Perhaps my experience is different from that of other Senators, but I am trying to think of normal councils with normal people acting as councillors, where people pay rates and like to get service for the rates they pay and take an interest in the things that are done. There may be a question of a bridge to be repaired, or some such thing, and an order made about that by the county surveyor or the county manager, and I feel that it is not sufficient for the manager to come in and just leave his register there on the table for the chairman or councillors to look through. That might mean looking down through a whole series of orders dealing with the whole county in order that a councillor might find out what happened in his own district. Take the case of the Order Paper of the Seanad here. I have it here in my hand and there is quite a long list of Orders that are left on the Table. I wonder how many Senators take the trouble to go through these Orders, although I admit that it is our job to do so. However, I am quite certain that it is not fully done, and I think that, from the point of view of the county councils, it is very necessary that the members of these councils should be kept fully cognisant of the activities of the county manager. The county manager may make a particular order affecting a particular part of the county, and which may involve a lot of expenditure. That is put down in his book, but the county councillors in another district will not know anything about that. It may happen that some trouble will arise about that particular matter, perhaps some months later, and then there is a lot of to-do about the matter and a great deal of confusion arises that could have been avoided. I believe that the county councillors should be informed of what the manager is doing, that it should not be merely a matter of his leaving the orders on the table, and that there should be an obligation on him to inform the councillors of what he has been doing, and, in the second place, that there should be an obligation on the councillors themselves to listen to him and discover from him what is taking place. I think that the right way to deal with these orders is to have them read out at the council meetings, or at least to have their headings read out. I know that there is a certain difficulty with regard to the shortage of paper at the moment in connection with the circulation of these lengthy orders, but I am not speaking of Dublin now, I am speaking of the ordinary councils down through the country. I am not thinking of the manifold orders that will have to be made in the case of a city such as Dublin. That is another problem, and I am not seeking to deal with that.
Is not Senator Baxter's point covered by Section 26, where it says that "every county manager shall, whenever requested by the council of his county or by an elective body for which he is the manager or by the chairman of such council or of any such body so to do, afford to such council, body, or chairman, as the case may require, all such information as may be in the possession or procurement of such county manager in regard to any Act, matter, or thing appertaining to or concerning any business or transaction of such council or body, as the case may be, which is mentioned in such request"? That covers amply the principle of Equity, vigilantibus non dormientibus.
I would just like to say, in reply to Professor Magennis, that that betrays two completely different lines of approach. I do not want the county councillor going to the county manager asking: "What did you do about this? Where do we stand with regard to that?" I want the obligation put on the county manager to tell the people, amongst whom he is living and working, what he is doing, and I think that that is the least that can be expected of him. I think our county councillors will have to go to the manager at the meetings in a rather informal way, in a sort of confused way, that each county councillor will be putting the question: "What did you do about this and that?" I believe that you would have a much more orderly and better informed council if what I am urging were accepted. I definitely feel that it is not the way to get the work done that our county councillors would have to go to the manager and say: "Please, sir, will you tell me what did you do about this?"
On that point, in regard to Section 26, would it not be possible for the manager to circulate something to the councillors similar to the minutes which are already circulated in every properly run council? That could be done by means of the Gestetner machines, which would make the work much easier than it used to be.
If the council requests that, there is no difficulty. The difficulty I see about reading out all these things is that the councillors might not be there. Councillors, working against time, would know that it would take a certain time to read out all these matters. Take a quarterly meeting. Every little thing the manager did during the three months might have to be read at that meeting and would take considerable time. I do not think it would be practicable to do it in that way. But under that section the councillors can get copies. It is not a question of saying, "Please, sir, give me this." It is a question of asking for what they are entitled to get. They are entitled to get a copy of every order that has been made since the last meeting. There is nothing to prevent the councillors getting from the manager a copy of all the orders.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
(2) Subject to any orders or regulations made by the Minister under any Act and at the time being in force in relation to the service, remuneration, privileges or superannuation (as the case may be) of the officers and servants of a local authority, the county manager for a county or the manager for an elective body shall consider and decide all such questions as may from time to time arise in relation to the service, remuneration, privileges and superannuation of the officers and servants of the council of such county or of such elective body, as the case may be.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In sub-section (2), line 62, after the word "shall" to insert the words "after consultation with the county council."
I am urging, and I have argued it already, with regard to the question of service, remuneration, privileges, and superannuation of officers, that that will be done after consultation with the county council. I am not going to argue any more about it.
I think that would not be an advance, because a weak manager might try to shift the responsibility on to the county council, which I do not want.
I am only suggesting consultation.
You know what that develops into very often.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
(1) Every county manager shall, in each local financial year, cause to be prepared at the prescribed time an estimate (in this Act referred to as an estimate of expenses) showing the amounts which, in his opinion, will be necessary to meet the expenses and provide for the liabilities and requirements of the council of his county during the local financial year then ensuing.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In sub-section (1), page 14, line 41, to delete the word "in" and to substitute the word "for".
This is purely a drafting amendment.
It says "in each local financial year". That might mean that the estimate should be prepared in the year to which it related. As members of councils know, these estimates are prepared before that year begins.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:—
In sub-section (1), page 14, line 42, to delete the word "at" and substitute the word "during", and to delete the word "time" and substitute the words "period and in the prescribed form".
This is also a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 21, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I think there is a chance of improving the present procedure. In the second line of Section 21, sub-section (1), are the words "at the prescribed time". The prescribed time is laid down, first of all for the county board of health, which is done away with, but for which there will still have to be an estimate of some sort, and for the county council, in the Public Bodies Order—I think Sections 76 and 79. It is laid down that the county board of health puts in its estimate at a certain date early in the year, and, two months later, the county council produces its own estimate, and at another time the roads estimate is put in as well. We find the rates going up year by year. The councillors come in, and on the estimate day, when the manager, as he will be now, puts forward the estimate, nobody has any idea, or very little idea, of what they are spending. The Minister has power under Article 3 of the Public Bodies Order from time to time to assent to any departure from the rules and regulations contained in this order. I do not know whether that always gives him the power to fix certain dates, but what I am suggesting is that, instead of the prescribed time being laid down, at a definite time early in the year there should first of all be a preliminary estimate in which the manager would describe to the county council what I call the fixed charges which he had to meet, such as interest on overdrafts and so on, so as to give them some idea of what they had got to spend before they started doing any improvements or anything else, and of their influence in the shapes of shillings and pennies on the actual rate itself.
If this original estimate were to be reviewed periodically—and the order made by the Minister would be varied to insist on this—I think the council would be far better aware of the degree to which the rate grew from, we will say, February, which is the first date, to June, and so on. The manager could say, "If you do this, your rate will grow from 7/- to 11/- and you have still six months to go." I think there would be very many fewer resolutions for improvements and works. I admit that schemes would move a good deal more slowly but these schemes would move in far better relation to the ability of the ratepayers to pay. Just to go back to that story of Kerry and to what Senator Madden said and the Minister said. The fault lies not with the post office collection. In fact, but for the post office collection, you would have no rates in Kerry at all, but the fault lies with the fact that the councillors come in, each one primed for a particular scheme. All the schemes are voted and passed, and but for the Minister here at the top, it is incredible what would be the burden on the ratepayers. Finally, the unfortunate ratepayers simply cannot foot the bill, and that is why we have got arrears of £59,000, not because we are unwilling to pay, we are burning to pay, but we cannot and that is the whole thing. I do suggest that the Minister's staff should examine the wording——
Could not your point be met under the Public Bodies Order?
I think you use the words "the prescribed time".
We are changing that in the amendment.
You do not use the words "prescribed time" at all in the Public Bodies Order?
I think what is required from the Department is a circular letter indicating the general idea of what I propose, but there should be periodical reviews and a definite statement to the council of what they are spending.
There is no objection at all to that.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 22.
(1) Every manager for an elective body shall, in each local financial year, cause to be prepared at the prescribed time an estimate (in this Act referred to as an estimate of expenses) showing the amounts which, in his opinion, will be necessary to meet the expenses and provide for the liabilities and requirements of such elective body during the local financial year then next ensuing.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In sub-section (1), page 15, line 14, to delete the word "in" and to substitute the word "for".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:—
In sub-section (1), page 15, line 15, to delete the word "at" and to substitute the word "during" and to delete the word "time" and to substitute the words "period and in the prescribed form".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
(1) The council of a county or an elective body may, at any time after they have adopted under this Act an estimate of expenses, consent by resolution to the expenditure of money or the incurring of a liability in respect of the exercise or performance, during the local financial year to which such estimate of expenses relates, of any particular power, function, or duty of such council or elective body (as the case may be) mentioned in such estimate of expenses in excess of the expenditure specified in such estimate in respect of such particular power, function, or duty.
(2) Save with a consent given by resolution under the foregoing sub-section of this section, the total amount of money expended and liability incurred by the council of a county or by an elective body in any local financial year in respect of the exercise or performance in that year of a power, function, or duty of such council or elective body which is mentioned in the estimate of expenses adopted by such council or elective body for the said year shall not exceed the amount specified in the said estimate of expenses in respect of that power, function, or duty.
I move amendments Nos. 27 and 28:—
27. In sub-section (1), page 16, to insert in line 41 before the word "consent" the words "for any local financial year", to delete all words from the word "in" in line 42 to the word "expenses" in line 46, to insert in line 46 before the word "specified" the words "for any particular purpose", and to delete in lines 46 and 47 the words "particular power, function, or duty" and to substitute the words "financial year".
28. In sub-section (2), page 16, to delete all words from the words "in respect" in line 52 to the word "year" in line 56 and to substitute the words "for any particular purpose specified in the estimate of expenses for such local financial year", to insert in line 56 before the word "amount" the word "total", and to delete in line 57 the words "power, function, or duty" and to substitute the word "purposes".
These amendments are inserted following representations by the secretaries of county councils. They say that it is quite easy for them to estimate under four principal heads, but that there are certain sub-divisions of these four heads in respect of which it is not so easy to estimate. They will, I hope, be satisfied with the provision that they shall keep within the estimate for any one of the four principal heads, but that in the case of the smaller things they may save on one and apply the saving to another. It is a matter of being able to keep within their estimate without tying themselves down in respect of the minor portions of the estimate. It gives more flexibility.
Amendments agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 24 stand part of the Bill."
I am afraid I have not quite taken in these amendments. Do they make sure that large supplementary estimates, such as we have here, cannot be placed on a council by resolution, that is, estimates over and above those made at the prescribed times?
If a council wants to do more, they will have to put up the money.
I think it is a very dangerous practice to allow these supplementary estimates. I think there should be a definite limitation and that they should set down at the four prescribed dates, if you like, what they are going to spend, because the rates are going up, as the Minister knows, beyond the capacity of everybody to pay.
It will not be a question of supplementary estimates but of making a rate at the beginning of the year. If they want to get particular work done and provide the money, they can do it, but it is when they are making the rate that they must provide the money.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 29:—
Before Section 25 on page 16, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Each body to which this Act applies shall as soon as may be after the expiration of each half year (but not later than four months after the 30th September and 31st March) have its accounts for the period balanced and made ready for audit, and a notification to this effect sent to the Local Government Department.
(2) The Local Government Department shall within ten months after the close of each financial half year send an auditor to examine and certify the accounts.
(3) At least fourteen days prior to each audit a notice of intention to audit shall be inserted in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in the administrative area; and on completion of each audit a notice of completion shall be inserted in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in the administrative area.
(4) Within four weeks after the auditor has duly certified the accounts for each half year the Manager shall cause to be inserted in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in the administrative area a statement of Receipts and Expenditure under the various heads, a summary of balances in favour and/or against at the close of the half year, and a statement of assets and liabilities.
(5) As soon as may be after each half-yearly audit the complete abstract of accounts as certified by the auditor shall be printed, and copies of such abstract made available to ratepayers on payment of one shilling for each copy.
During the passage of the Bill through the Dáil, an amendment on somewhat similar lines was moved and, after discussion, was, by leave, withdrawn. That amendment called for an audit of the accounts of each body to which the Act applies not later than four months after the close of each financial year, by either a Local Government auditor or a chartered accountant appointed by the Minister for the purpose. It also called for the insertion in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in the administrative area of a statement of receipts and expenditure under the various heads, a summary of balances in favour or against each account, and the manager's or secretary's statements of assets and liabilities. It finally asked that as soon as might be after the completion of each half-yearly audit, a complete abstract of accounts duly certified by the auditors should be printed, and copies made available to ratepayers on payment of 1/- for each copy.
The Minister on that occasion, while agreeing that it was very undesirable that there should be delay in auditing the accounts of public bodies, contended, and reasonably in my opinion, that if the auditing of these accounts was to be completed within four months, it would entail the employment of a number of extra auditors, for whom no work would be available for the remaining eight months of the year. He also stated that in a few instances he had come across, the engagement of chartered accountants to do this work, owing to their lack of contact with public bodies, had imposed a big charge on the councils, due probably, he said, to the extra time necessary to perform the work. He finally said that he did not think it desirable to have too much rigidity in matters of this kind.
The amendment I submit is drafted so as, firstly, to remove the rigidity to which the Minister referred; secondly, to ensure that the Local Government auditors will have a somewhat even spread of work throughout the year; and, finally, to make available to the ratepayers through the medium of advertisements in the Press in the particular administrative area, the financial condition of such public bodies functioning in that area. I think it can very reasonably be argued that to whatever extent illegalities or irregularities have occurred from time to time under the present system, they may be attributed, to some extent at any rate, to the Local Government Department's remissness in this matter of regular audits. Such audits of public bodies' accounts have not hitherto been carried out with that regularity which one would wish.
A reply to a recent Question in the Dáil on this matter elicited the information that there are some county councils and boards of health seven half-years in arrears with audits, and the average for all county councils and boards of health is four half-years in arrears. That return, in my opinion, amply justifies the amendment with regard to regular audits of accounts of public bodies to which the Act will apply, and I do not think it would be unfair to say that no business concern could be properly controlled or managed if the same haphazard system of audits were permitted. I think that disaster would inevitably follow such a practice. It is unnecessary to stress this aspect beyond saying that the ratepayers individually are entitled to know within a reasonable period how their money is spent, and are also entitled to the safeguards which regular audits by competent auditors will, in my opinion, secure for them.
I do not make any allegation against the Local Government Department as such. The request for prior publication of notice of intention to audit and of the completion of the audit, and the publication of the audited accounts in the Press is certainly not unreasonable. In fact, I submit that when the Act comes into operation and responsibility for all expenditure will have become vested in virtually one man or woman —I presume that a woman may even become a county manager—it will be more imperative and desirable than ever before that full and effective publicity should be availed of so that the ratepayers will be in a position to know how their money is being spent. I want it to be clearly understood that I make no charge whatever against the efficiency of the Local Government auditing department. I have no doubt whatever that the auditors of the Department are as competent to discharge their duties and to render efficient and valuable service to the community as any other branch of the Civil Service, but I do suggest that it should be so organised and sufficiently staffed as to ensure the carrying out of the audits within the time prescribed in the amendment, or, at least, in a somewhat reasonable period.
I have heard it suggested—I must confess that I do not believe there is any truth in the suggestion—that instances have from time to time occurred where irregularities or illegalities have, for alleged political reasons, been passed over without comment or surcharge, and it is for the purpose of obviating such happenings, or suggestions that such things could happen, that I am advocating in the amendment that, under the new régime, the county management system should be made thoroughly watertight.
This, in my opinion, can be accomplished only by rigid adherence to the principle of regular audits and the publication of the necessary information in connection therewith. I am sure the Minister is getting ready to turn this amendment down, and I would just draw attention to a statement that he made in the Dáil when he said that he did not think it was desirable to have it, and that he thought it was covered in the Public Bodies Order. The Minister said that he would keep that in mind and see what could be done. I would ask him now, if he turns down this amendment, to see if the terms of the amendment can be given effect to by the Public Bodies Order. That would save time.
The provisions of the Public Bodies Order already in operation are, I think, sufficient. Article 37 of the Public Bodies Order, 1925, says:—
When the secretary or clerk has received from the Department of Local Government and Public Health a copy of the auditor's report and of the abstract, he shall lay the same before the council or board at their next meeting and shall forthwith after such meeting, in lieu of the publication of the abstract of accounts directed to be published by Section 18 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1871, publish a notice (Form 15) in some one or more of the public newspapers circulating throughout the county and district; and shall furnish without charge to the proprietor or editor of any newspaper who may apply for the same, and to each member of the council or board, a copy of the auditor's report and a copy of the abstract; he shall also furnish a copy of the report and abstract to any person who applies for the same and pays therefor to the council or board the sum of sixpence.
If the Minister shall so direct, the council or board shall publish the auditor's report in a newspaper circulating throughout the county, borough, or district.
While I regret that there may have been delay in auditing accounts, and while I may try in some way to speed that up, I do not think it is wise to accept this, and cannot undertake to pin the auditors down to a certain period. We are trying to do the best we can with the staff we have. Some members of the staff were changed over to other Departments at one time, when the other Departments were interfered with also, but certainly we will try to speed matters up. Senator Campbell seems to be making a charge which I never heard of, and which I feel is without foundation—I did not gather whether he was making it against auditors or against the members of councils—that certain things were passed over for political reasons.
I am not making any charge, but I heard the suggestion.
That is quite all right, so. I have never heard it. That is sufficient regarding the first portion of the amendment. The time of the audit will have to depend on the time it takes and the volume of work to be done. Very often, for various reasons, the auditor has to postpone the audit from one time to another, and it may extend over a lengthy period. I do not think we could impose other duties on councils about printing. That is a matter for the councils themselves, and if they want to do it I do not suppose there would be any objection. Anybody interested can get a certified abstract of the accounts for sixpence. The members of the council get it for nothing, and I do not think there is any necessity to ask the council to incur more expense. Even when it is only sixpence, very little interest is taken in it, and very few people apply for it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 25 agreed to.
Sections 26, 27 and 28 agreed to.
Amendment No. 30, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 29 and 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
(1) In every action or other legal proceeding, whether civil or criminal, instituted in any court of law or equity by or against the council of a county, the county manager for that county shall act for and on behalf of such council and may do all such acts, matters, and things as he may consider necessary for the preparation and prosecution or defence of such action or other proceeding in the same manner in all respects as if (as the case may require) he were the plaintiff or prosecutor or the defendant therein, and, where such action or other proceeding relates to the exercise or performance by such council of a reserved function of such council, such county manager shall, in the doing of any such act, matter, or thing as aforesaid, act with the express authority of such council, and such authority shall be deemed to have been given unless or until the contrary is shown.
I move amendment No. 31:—
In sub-section (1), line 26, to insert after the word "things" the words "under the advice of the Council's legal adviser".
This section deals with legal proceedings. The section reads:
In every action or other legal proceeding, whether civil or criminal, instituted in any court of law or equity by or against the council of a county, the county manager for that county shall act for and on behalf of such council and may do all such acts, matters, and things as he may consider necessary....
I am seeking to insert there "under the advice of the Council's legal adviser." Some councils have had peculiar experience in this matter of legal action. There is a legal adviser attached to each council and it should not be within the power of the county manager to proceed to any sort of legal action, either as plaintiff or defendant, and go into any court and become involved in all sorts of costs, without seeking legal advice. Whatever is done should be done under the advice of the solicitor to the county council. Secretaries of county councils are going to be appointed as county managers, presumably; most of them are very efficient, I am sure, and will probably do the work as well as anybody else.
However, it is one thing to be a county manager and another thing to be a lawyer. I do not think so many of them are lawyers. If they are going to be given power to decide whether or not they are going to enter into all sorts of legal proceedings—and to do that without consultation with the solicitor—I fear the result will be unsatisfactory. I have some experience of that, and know that it is not the thing to do. The county managers should not get this power without there being an obligation on them to seek legal opinion.
It seems quite obvious, from the fact that a solicitor is appointed at all, that it is the business of the county manager to consult him. Otherwise he would not be there. If you were to follow that idea to its logical conclusion, you should say that in certain cases it would be the business of the county manager to consult senior counsel. I do not think there is any necessity to put that in. A person with sufficient commonsense and ability will be appointed as county manager. If he does not apply for the advice of a solicitor or other legal expert, and makes a mistake, causing a whole lot of expense, he can be hauled over the coals.
What is then going to happen to the manager? If he is very busy and hands a case over to somebody else to proceed with without having consulted the solicitor: supposing that he loses the case, is he surcharged?
The manager who would be so busy that he could not look after his own business should not be manager.
He would have five elected bodies to deal with.
He has a solicitor for each body. If he did not take proper precautions he would be surcharged.
While what the Minister says is quite all right, this section reads in a particular way. I am not talking without some experience and I suggest that this is essential. We are not legislating for to-day only: even to-day these things have happened, and county councils have been engaged in rather extravagant legal proceedings. The county manager is being put in the position that he shall act "for and on behalf of such council and may do all such acts, matters, and things as he may consider necessary for the preparation and prosecution or defence of such action...." He could embark on proceedings—indeed, they have been embarked on—without advice.
On a point of order, Senator Baxter should read on a little further in sub-section (1): "in the same manner in all respects as if he were the plaintiff or prosecutor or the defendant therein". That is, he shall use the same diligence in regard to the affairs of the council as if it were his own case; and, if he does not, he is guilty of culpable negligence.
There are times when it is rather difficult to argue your case.
This is one of the times.
It is not that there is not the justification. It is not because there is not a very good case. I think the Minister should be quite satisfied that there is a very good reason why I could argue it. You may have a manager who thinks that he would know as much about the law as any lawyer. With all respect to the lawyers, there are any number of laymen who think they know a good deal about law, and that sometimes the lawyers are not right in their opinions. If the county manager is put in the position that he can engage in legal proceedings, both in regard to taking the initiative in actions against contractors or acting on the defensive where contractors may take legal proceedings, you may have a council involved in considerable expense that would be avoided if proper methods were adopted and proper steps taken with regard to consultation with a legal adviser. I am not going to argue the matter any further than that.
I think the manager will have quite enough to do to look after his own business and to refer those matters involving legal proceedings to solicitors, just the same as he will have to be guided by the road engineers in respect to matters connected with roads. Even if you have a man inclined to be a meddler, he will have enough to do in looking after the duties of his own office.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 31 and 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 33.
(1) The following provisions shall apply and have effect in relation to every district mental hospital the district of which comprises one county only, that is to say:—
(a) the powers, functions, and duties conferred and imposed by Section 9 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, on the council of such county in relation to provision for the maintenance of the lunatic poor in such county and in relation to the provision, maintenance and administration of such mental hospital shall not, after the commencement of this Act, be exercised and performed by such council through such committee as is provided for by the said Section 9, but shall, in lieu of such committee be exercised and performed by such council in accordance with this Act, that is to say, in so far as such powers, functions, and duties are reserved functions, by such council directly and, in so far as such powers, functions, and duties are executive functions, by and through the county manager for such county;
(b) such council shall from time to time appoint a committee to be known and in this section referred to as the visiting committee of such mental hospital;
(c) not more than one-half of the members of such visiting committee may be persons who are not members of such council;
(d) the tenure of office of the members of such visiting committee shall be determined by such council;
(e) all casual vacancies in the membership of such visiting committee shall be filled by such council.
(2) In the case of every district mental hospital the district of which comprises two or more counties or a county borough and one or more county or counties, the joint committee of management of such hospital appointed under Section 9 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, as amended by subsequent enactments shall be the visiting committee of such hospital within the meaning and for the purposes of this section, and the subsequent provisions of this section in relation to visiting committees shall apply to such committee of management accordingly.
(3) Subject to the other provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of the visiting committee of a district mental hospital to do the following things, that is to say:—
(a) from time to time to visit such hospital and there to hear any complaints which may be made to them by any inmate of such hospital and, if so requested by such inmate, to hear such complaint in private;
(b) to report to the council or councils by whom such hospital is maintained any abuses observed or found by such committee in such hospital;
(c) to report to such council or councils on any repairs to such hospital which may appear to such committee to be urgently needed;
(d) to report to such council or councils on any matter relating to such hospital on which such committee thinks it expedient so to report or on which such council or all or any of such councils shall have requested such committee so to report.
(4) The visiting committee of a district mental hospital shall not inquire into or receive any complaint or make any report in relation to the services, remuneration, privileges or superannuation of the officers and servants of such hospital or any of such officers or servants.
(5) The visiting committee of a district mental hospital shall collectively, and every member of such committee shall individually, be entitled at all times to visit such hospital and to have free access to every part thereof.
(6) The Minister may by order make rules prescribing the powers and duties of visiting committees of district mental hospitals and the manner in which such committees shall exercise and perform such powers and duties and all other powers and duties conferred or imposed on them by this section or otherwise.
(7) Every visiting committee of a district mental hospital shall comply with and observe the rules made by the Minister under the next preceding sub-section of this section and for the time being in force so far as such rules apply to such committee.
(8) Every order made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as conveniently may be after it is made and if either such House shall, within the next twenty-one days on which it sits after such order is laid before it, pass a resolution annulling such order or any rule or rules made thereby, such order, rule, or rules (as the case may be) shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
I move amendment No. 32:—
To delete the section.
I do not intend to delay the House very long on this amendment. My purpose is at the eleventh hour to suggest to the Minister that something more should be done in relation to medical charities, as applied to mental hospitals and other hospitals as well. In Section 33, amongst the matters which are set out as the duty of the visiting committee of a district mental hospital is the following:
"From time to time to visit such hospital and there to hear any complaints which may be made to them by any inmate of such hospital and, if so requested by such inmate, to hear such complaints in private."
Then, again, in sub-section (4), it is set out that the visiting committee of a district mental hospital shall not inquire into or receive any complaint or make any report in relation to the services, remuneration, privileges or superannuation of the officers and servants of such hospital or any of such officers or servants. I submit, Sir, that sub-section (a), which I quoted first, is somewhat loose in its drafting. I think the section takes away authority that might reasonably be left with the committee. I would suggest to the Minister that this Bill would be very much improved by leaving all hospitals in charge of the councils. I do not see that a visiting committee can be of much use if, after hearing complaints of a weakened mind in the hospital, they find that nothing must be done in regard to the staff. I think you must look to the staff of the mental hospital to give loyalty to the council and to the representatives of the people.
It has been stated that good government is no substitute for government by the people. I think that is a very sound principle. To take away all power from representatives of the patients, and to place it absolutely in the hands of a professional man, is to my mind wrong. How can these poor people who go into these hospitals voice any grievance that they may have when redress through the councils is barred to them? I should not like to tell the Minister how difficult I find it to get into his Department to make a complaint sometimes. I do not want to enter on a Second Reading speech, but I submit that there are in this country scores of people whose services could be utilised for medical charities. I would remind Senator Robinson that about two months ago he attended a meeting with me, a meeting loosely called at seven o'clock on a winter's night, and we had 120 or 130 people there who were anxious to give their services to the Red Cross when the war came along, and when these services were to be given outside Ireland. I think that the State here should do something to invite such people, who are willing to give their services, to do so through the medium of medical charities to hospitals. I think it is a mistake to take control from the people in regard to these hospitals.
It is quite possible to limit expense and at the same time to invite the sympathy and support of those who are prepared to contribute them. The Red Cross Society, the St. Vincent de Paul Society and the Fianna Fáil clubs should all be invited to contribute their services. A sense of citizenship and of duty to others could be legally and legitimately developed in that way without infringing on anybody. How can you expect such services to be rendered if you provide in this Bill that the visiting committee of a mental hospital shall not inquire into or receive any complaints, or make any reports in relation to the services of officers and servants of such hospitals? It is all very well for Senator Magennis to tell me that certain things are provided for in the Bill. That is the professional mind down to a "T"—it is in the Bill, and everything in the library is all right; but when it comes down to the bogs, to Biddy McGee, Jane Moran, and the rest of them, I should like to see these provisions implemented much more thoroughly than this Bill provides for. There is none of these powers that could not be exercised by the local board. If you limit the expense, you cannot possibly do any harm or injustice to anybody.
The Senator, I think, is criticising certain aspects of the question, but he is really seeking the deletion of the whole section. The position that will arise is that you would have mental hospital committees and the manager would have no control over them, or the staff, or anything else. Mental hospitals are costing £1,000,000 a year and they have about 3,000 officials. I notice that a further amendment put forward by the Senator proposes to maintain boards of health. If you maintain mental hospitals and boards of health and exclude them from the manager, it is just as well to withdraw the Bill.
I did not suggest any such thing. I had in mind the maintenance of cohesion, and these different committees could be appointed by the council, subject to the manager.
I have stated the effect of the amendment. Bodies would be appointed at the request of the manager to deal with various things in certain cases.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 33 stand part of the Bill."
There is just one point on this section. Sub-section (5) seems to be a rather extraordinary one. It says:
"The visiting committee of a district mental hospital shall collectively, and every member of such committee shall individually, be entitled at all times to visit such hospital and to have free access to every part thereof."
That power given to an individual member might on occasion be dangerous and I suggest that something ought to be done to amend it.
We propose to regulate that on the Report Stage.
Thanks. I was going to suggest that you could insert the words "subject to the consent of the resident medical superintendent".
"Subject to regulations being made," and the regulations will cover that point.
I do not think you will have any trouble about that.
Section 33 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 34 stand part of the Bill."
I want to ask the Minister a question. Does the term "public body" apply to governing bodies?
That is a matter I will get cleared up some time before the Report Stage, but we think it does.
With regard to the question raised by Senator Mrs. Concannon, I would like to know if the nomination of electors for the Seanad is covered by Section 34.
It will be a serious occurrence if the Seanad fell through, through any neglect of ours.
I think it is covered by another Act.
Section 34 agreed to.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
Sections 35 to 39, inclusive, and the First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule stand part of the Bill."
I move:—
In line 21, page 24, to delete the words "conditions as to payment or".
I want to end on rather a high note. The whole way through this debate Senator Baxter has been whispering in my ear, complaining of the standard of my county council. He told me that they are not orderly, that they are a frightful body——
It is really magical in that sense that I have put in a proposal that those four words "conditions as to payment" should be cut out from the reserved functions of the county council. The reasons are my experience of a mental hospital committee. First of all the members arrive, generally on a Saturday, and they do what work the medical superintendent puts before them and apart from what Senator McGee is frightened of, I want to tell him that during the last three years I do not think that one single member of that hospital committee has ever visited one ward or any part of the hospital. But when suddenly somebody meets him and says "Mary So-and-so, or Paddy So-and-so is no longer able to pay," notwithstanding the fact that he has paid ever since the time of entry, a resolution is put forward that in these particular cases, the actual charges should be remitted.
The medical superintendent and the county secretary have told me again and again that there was no foundation for it whatever, and in one case a resolution was put down that the whole scale of charges should not be remitted but reduced. It seems to me that the manager and the medical superintendent in preparing their estimates in the beginning of the year should be able to decide, on their contracts and the normal maintenance of the hospital, what the contributions of the patients as a whole should be and I think that this is only opening a chance of patronage which the whole of this Bill is attempting to take away from people who are prone to use it for one end or the other. The amendment seeks to take away patronage in that particular case. I would like the Minister to take out those four little words.
Some references made by Senator The McGillycuddy are just what I was going to say. I wanted to refer to three items on this Schedule.
We must dispose of the amendment first.
One of them has been referred to by Senator The McGillycuddy. What struck me was the making of the regulations by the council.
I never raised that. I raised only the question of the conditions of payment.
We will deal with the amendment.
This is taken from Section 9 (6) of the Local Government Act, 1898. It has not been of any practical importance during those intervening years. Where the council sets apart a certain portion of a mental hospital to deal with private patients who are able to pay in full, it provides that the council will have power to fix what should be charged for maintenance. Where a person goes into a mental hospital in the ordinary way, it is a matter for the manager to recover if they are able to pay. If he ascertains that a certain patient in a mental hospital has relatives who are able to pay, he can proceed to collect himself, but up to the present in those mental hospitals no portion has been set aside for dealing with purely private patients. The matter is therefore of no importance, and I do not mind one way or the other, but we took it from the 1898 Act.
That is leaving the position as it is at present?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule be the Second Schedule of the Bill."
I want to raise a few points with regard to some things that I think could be done better and with more efficiency by the county manager. This is the Schedule defining reserved functions, and one of them is the sub-section that has been referred to in the amendment. It is the making of these regulations, however, which seems to me to be imposing work on the councils which they might not be able to do efficiently. I wish to put forward the point of view that the making of regulations in clause 8 might be better performed by the county manager and his staff. Then in clause 9 (d) there is mention of the making and submission of a planning scheme under Section 29 of the Town and Regional Planning Act, 1934. That is giving democracy a greater power, if you like, but I think that the functions under clause 9 (d) would be better performed by the manager and his officials. I put forward that suggestion to the Minister. I have another suggestion with regard to clause 12, which simply details parliamentary and local elections as being a reserved function for the council. I do not think that that definition is wide enough. Does it mean the entire supervision of parliamentary elections? That matter was not actually in the power of the county council but was under the returning officer who was a law unto himself. To simply put down under clause 12, parliamentary and local elections, seems to me to be not explanatory enough. What is meant by parliamentary and local elections being a reserved function? It does not mean anything to me.
Well, it means something to the Seanad. What I mean is that we thought that might cover the method of election to the Seanad.
Well, it should be put down in such a way as to embrace that. I think that the clause requires some clarification. Clause 21 describes as a reserved function: "the exercise of a power which is vested by law, including this Act, in the council of a county or an elective body and is by this Act expressly made exercisable by resolution of such council or body". I thought that Senators might come under that. I understood that an elective body was different. It says "the council of a county or an elective body". I think that, with a little clarification, the election of Senators would come in there. It says "the exercise of a power which is vested by law, including this Act, in the council of a county or an elective body" to do so-and-so, but subsequently it says here that by this Act it shall be expressly made exercisable by resolution of such council or body. That seems to rule out the nomination of the electoral college. In my opinion, clause 21 could be clarified to include the electoral college, and I also think that clause 12 should be clarified and that the making and submission of a planning scheme, mentioned in clause 9 (d) should not be considered as a reserved function, because it seems to me to be too deep a subject for the members of the council to be able to give the study and time that would be essential in the preparation of a town-planning scheme under the Town and Regional Planning Act. I do not mean that as any slur on or insult to councils, but I think that, in their own interests and in the interests of efficiency, it might be better to have these things performed by the county manager and his staff.
I think that is an abominable suggestion. I think it is ridiculous to think that all the initiative and intelligence of Ireland is wrapped up in the professional men. Clause 9 (d) reserves the making of a planning scheme to the council, and so far as the professional men are concerned it does not require much training for any man to be able to see the state of the market in Dublin on a Thursday, and the litter and dirt that is there, when all that should be out in some area such as the Clontarf area. What is the use in Senator O'Donovan, just because he is a professional man himself, telling us that the members of the councils have not enough initiative, when anyone can see in Dublin on a Thursday morning that there is a positive danger to life and limb to anyone passing by the market. I suggest that these professional people should be kept out of such matters, and that they should be left in the hands of the ordinary, natural people like myself, from the bogs and hills. The ordinary people have just as much initiative, and we do not want to be coming in here to be listening to a lot of windbag professors.
Clause 21 is intended merely to preserve the powers under this Act as well as other Acts, but if you did not put clause 21 there it would mean that the manager might be in the position of the council, and it is to preserve the reserved functions given to the council under the Act itself, and that they should be exercisable by the council, that that clause is there.
Second Schedule agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
I formally move amendment No. 35:—
In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 10, page 27, line 32, to delete the word "expenditure" and to substitute the word "payments".
It is considered that "payments" is a better word than "expenditure".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to, and Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 29th May.
The Seanad adjourned at 10.10 p.m. until Wednesday, 22nd May, at 3 p.m.
