Last night I was referring to some of the criticisms of county councils which had been made by various speakers. There were charges of inefficiency, and some, I think of corruption and extravagance. I referred to the charges of inefficiency. I said that to my mind the inefficiency was due mainly to the fact that the Government made the election of county councillors a political question, and that councils all over the country had become mainly political bodies. That, to my mind, tends towards inefficiency. I think the charge of corruption is greatly exaggerated. There have been, of course, instances of corruption and other irregularities. As the number of councillors totals, I suppose, over 1,000 for the whole country, it would only be natural that here and there would be a black sheep, but on the whole I think that in that respect our local bodies compare favourably with similar bodies in other countries. Even if there were corruption—corruption even on a larger scale than can ever be proved—is there not at present the corrective and the penal machinery to deal with it? We have, first of all, direct control by the central body, the Local Government Department. It practically controls all the local bodies. There is examination of their accounts by qualified local government auditors in the matter of purchases of stores and other commodities. The last Government brought in a Bill under which the county councils purchase centrally under a combined purchasing scheme. Very little power is left to them in that direction. There is even power, if the worst comes to the worst, to dissolve them, and they have been dissolved on occasions for some of the reasons stated. If that is one of the arguments in favour of the Bill, I think it fails lamentably.
Then we had a charge of extravagance. Councils have been extravagant; at least the ratepayers thought they were extravagant. In any case, the rates have risen in most counties. But is it always the councillors themselves who have been extravagant? Have they not been almost forced into extravagance by the Central Government? Most people consider that in the last seven or eight years the Government has been very extravagant; under all Governments the tendency was to lead the local councils into spending more money. There were various Acts passed during the period since the establishment of this Parliament which necessitated the expenditure of large sums of money by local bodies. There was almost compulsory participation in certain central schemes. There were certain schemes of relief, for instance, passed by this House, for which the Exchequer provides, but the councils were told that they would not participate in the schemes unless they themselves contributed a certain proportion to the cost of those schemes—thereby inciting the councils, almost compelling them, to expend money.
In my own county, and I am sure in other counties, we had some schemes put up for which the only real justification was that they provided work, but as far as the immediate necessity for some of the schemes themselves was concerned they could very well have waited until better times. I do not blame the councillors; they were practically compelled to spend that money. We had even an incitement towards expenditure by the late head of the local government system. Speaking in my county, and referring to the expenditure, he said the only regret he had in the matter was that the rates were not high enough. Yet we have members of this House charging the councils themselves with extravagant expenditure. If there is to be retrenchment, to my mind it is more likely to be effected by the councillors themselves than by a manager. I think the councillors would be much more likely to resist the temptation to follow the directions of a central body in the line of expenditure than would the manager.
References have been made by a couple of speakers to canvassing by councillors. I think possibly the argument ought not have been made. Councillors have canvassed various people to get work—or jobs, if you like the word better—for individuals. I would ask the House is there anything wrong in seeking work for a person who has asked for it, provided you consider that the person is efficient? Personally I cannot see anything whatever wrong in it. Will this Bill cure it? Will not the manager himself be open to similar criticism? Is it not natural that the manager will be influenced in the same way by the opinion of the people who advised him, particularly the councillors with whom he will come into intimate contact? Is it not natural that he will be somewhat influenced by the opinions of those men if they say that certain people are efficient and ask him to appoint them? I think it is only natural that he will, just as the councillors were subject to influence in various ways.
We heard arguments that the present board of health system was not a good one. I am in agreement with that. I believe that a better system of dealing with poor law could be devised, but personally I do not believe that the cure is going to be found in centralisation, or unification if you like, of the scheme. I believe the remedy would be rather in the other direction—by decentralisation, by institutions something similar to the rural district councils. That would afford a greater opportunity of keeping in touch with the people for whom it provides. Somebody even suggested parish councils. I think parish councils might cover somewhat too small an area, but I do believe that something like the system of the old district councils would be a better one for the administration of the poor law than the present system of boards of health.
If there was one strong argument in favour of this Bill it was that the institution of the managerial system in some few cases had been a success; that the few counties where there are managers have been successfully administered. I will admit it. So far as I know, the counties where there are managers have had fairly successful administration. There have been criticisms. I suppose there never yet was a county in which there was not some criticism. On the whole, they have managed pretty well and they have administered county affairs fairly and efficiently.
There are two things to remember if we accept that as an argument for a general managerial system. The first is that the administration in the counties where they were set up was so bad that in some cases the councils had to be dissolved for one reason or another. When the councils were in such a bad state, from the administrative point of view, that they had to be dissolved and a manager put in, it was not remarkable that anyone who took charge after the councils were dissolved was able to make an improvement. Most Deputies will agree that after the councils were dissolved any individual who was put in to replace them would be able to make some improvement in administration. That cannot be taken as an argument for this Bill. Possibly the managers would have made some improvement even if there was pretty fair administration, but they stepped in where there was maladministration and, naturally, they brought about some improvement. That is not an argument.
There is a second qualification. Admitting that the existing managers are very capable—and I do admit they are very good men at their jobs—if we make it a universal system have we a supply of such excellent managers—are there sufficient to be found to function equally with the existing managers? I doubt if there are, and the Minister is doubtful. The Bill makes provision in certain circumstances for the work of administration under the supervision of county secretaries. I have not a word to say against the county secretaries. Most of them are honest, efficient officials, doing their duty pretty well. I do not know that they will discharge their duties more effectively if you make them managers instead of secretaries.
Why should there be, just now, such urgency for this Bill as there appears to be? I wonder if the Government are doubtful of the wisdom of the Franchise Act passed a few years ago—the extension of the Franchise Act? Are they running away from it before it has had a chance to operate, or is this the precursor of a derating Bill? If the Minister says it is, I will vote for it with a very easy conscience. I freely recognise that if the central executive are to be responsible for financing local bodies, they have some right to call the tune and demand that the central authority will have something more to say in the matter of local government. If there is no such intention, I doubt whether it is wise, at the moment, to depart from the existing system of administration. Councils have functioned well under existing local government laws and they will function well in the future under the same laws if they are permitted to do so. The only drawback we had in the functioning of councils was within the last few years when, unfortunately, our local bodies all over the country were turned into political bodies and became Party hacks and ineffective administrators.
I think if all Parties in the country united in appealing to the electorate to elect the best material that could be found as councillors, you have under the existing laws everything necessary for good local government. Amendments may be necessary to our local government laws. If they are necessary, why not bring them in? There are certain things that could be amended usefully, I dare say, but I believe it would be a dangerous and very illogical departure to go as far as this Bill suggests we should go. What does the Bill provide? It sets out to substitute for a duly elected council, elected on the general franchise, a manager subject to a central department, subject to the Minister, who is himself subject to a Party elected on the same franchise as the councils. Let us at least be logical. Either scrap the whole democratic system or let it function for local as well as for central government. I have not been impressed by any arguments advanced for this Bill. If I have been influenced at all, it was by the arguments submitted against the measure, and I propose to vote against it.
