Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Mar 1940

Vol. 79 No. 2

In Committee on Finance. - County Management Bill, 1939—Committee.

(1) In this Act—

the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Local Government and Public Health;

the word "borough" does not include a county borough or the borough of Dun Laoghaire.

(2) Each of the following bodies shall be a joint body within the meaning and for the purposes of this Act, and the expression "joint body" shall in this Act be construed and have effect accordingly, that is to say:—

(a) a board of public assistance,

(b) a joint committee of management of a district mental hospital,

(c) the Dublin Board of Assistance,

(d) a port sanitary authority,

(e) any joint board or committee established by or under a statute to execute functions belonging to two or more of the following bodies, that is to say, councils of counties, corporations of county boroughs, corporations of boroughs, the borough of Dun Laoghaire and urban district councils.

(3 Each of the following bodies shall be an elective body within the meaning and for the purposes of this Act, and the expression "elective body" shall in this Act be construed and have effect accordingly, that is to say, the corporation of a borough, an urban district council, the commissioners of a town, the Rathdown Board of Assistance, the Balrothery Board of Assistance, and a board, committee, or other body which is a joint body within the meaning and for the purposes of this Act.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. Ruttledge)

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (1), page 3, lines 18 and 19, to delete the words "or the borough of Dun Laoghaire."

I should point out that there is a large number of other amendments relating to this one. This is the only one bearing on others relating to the same thing, that is, the unification of Dublin City and County. These are amendments Nos. 1, 3, 9, 33, 36, 39, 47, 58, 60, 62, 63, 87, 89 and 90. When the Bill was introduced and got a Second Reading it was not proposed at that time to amalgamate the administration of Dublin City and County. The Tribunal for Greater Dublin reported recently and made certain recommendations. These recommendations envisaged something like a metropolitan county; that certain services in Dublin City and County would be administered by that county, that certain urban services would also be administered in that way and that in rural areas in Dublin County these services would be administered by what was called a public sanitary authority. I do not think this is a suitable time to put into operation the proposals in that report. In any event there has not been sufficient time to examine fully the implications of that report. But it has occurred to my Department that we might provide the machinery there, so that if and when a time came, which was considered to be a suitable time, we would have the machinery. What is proposed in the amendment is administratively to provide that machinery. It is proposed to make the Dublin City Manager also a manager for the county. It is proposed to have two assistant managers, that the present manager in Dun Laoghaire should become assistant city manager and assistant county manager, and that the secretary of the county council if considered a suitable person, as prescribed in the Act, would become an assistant county and assistant city manager, the two being under the control and direction of the Dublin City Manager.

Mr. Corish

What would his title be?

Mr. Ruttledge

Dublin City and County Manager. So far as the bodies are concerned you will have Dublin County Council and the bodies associated with it and Dublin Corporation remaining separate units. This came to mind in a certain way when some complaint was made about the provision of school meals. If we had school meals in Crumlin where, I understand, the school itself is just outside the city boundary, whereas the children attending it are inside it, this indicates that in such cases a provisional order might be made taking certain areas into the city. I do not know whether the principles commend themselves to the House but they commended themselves to my Department in this way, that we have seen the recommendations of the Greater Dublin Tribunal, and whether they are adopted in whole or in part you will have machinery provided that will be necessary to put them into operation if such proposals receive the assent of the Dáil or Seanad.

Professor O'Sullivan

Will the Minister make this matter clear to me? The proposal is that the present city manager, if the amendments are carried, will be the manager for the city and county.

Mr. Ruttledge

Yes.

Professor O'Sullivan

He will not be the manager of the city and of the county?

Mr. Ruttledge

He will.

Professor O'Sullivan

There is only one office. There is not to be one person holding two offices.

Mr. Ruttledge

One man holding both. They will be separate.

Professor O'Sullivan

I do not understand. I understood his job was to be a complete one, not that he was to be a man holding the position of city manager and as well manager of say Bray or Wicklow.

Mr. Ruttledge

No.

Professor O'Sullivan

I gathered that that was the position. He is to be a manager holding one job with two different bodies or is he simply to be a man who happened to hold two different jobs which were separate? Which is it?

Mr. Ruttledge

They are two separate jobs but he holds both.

Professor O'Sullivan

There is no unification.

Mr. Ruttledge

No, except in the way of administration. The assistant managers will be under him.

Professor O'Sullivan

There is no unification whatever?

Mr. Ruttledge

No.

Professor O'Sullivan

You would have as much unification if you had two separate men.

Mr. Belton

I cannot follow the meaning of the Minister's proposal. We had a Greater Dublin Tribunal a couple of years ago and the report has been on the shelf for some time. I presume when that commission was called together it was the intention to have its findings submitted to some authority to decide how much, if any, of them would be adopted and, I presume, that authority would be the Oireachtas. That has not been done. The Minister now proposes to get this House to adopt machinery for the administration of a body that he has not yet got the authority of this House to establish. Is not that the position? Conceivably this House could grant this administrative machinery for which the Minister asks and could afterwards say: "We will have nothing to do with the Greater Dublin report. Let things stay as they are." The first thing that should have been done was to put to this House proposals based on the Greater Dublin report, to see how far the House would give its sanction to them and then to devise machinery. The position at the present time is a very funny one to anyone who knows how administration is carried on. The borough manager of Dun Laoghaire is specifically mentioned as assistant manager, while the secretary of Dublin County Council is more or less casually mentioned. He will go with the joint body but, instead of becoming manager of County Dublin, he will become, other things being satisfactory, assistant manager for Dublin City and County. I take it that by virtue of the other name being mentioned, he will be junior to the manager in Dun Laoghaire. He will be manager of the county, which in present circumstances is a senior body to Dun Laoghaire Borough Council, because, as the Minister knows, some services in Dun Laoghaire Borough are subordinate to Dublin County Council, and pay rates to the county council.

The report of the Greater Dublin Tribunal and how far it is going to be adopted should be considered first before we set up the machinery. The Minister is aware that every administrative officer in the Dublin City Hall gave evidence before that tribunal against including any more undeveloped places in the city because of the difficulty of administration. I think that that should have been gone into in this House on a different proposal from the one we have before us before we decide on setting up the machinery. We should know what is to be the unit and how the administration is to be carried out there. For instance, how will the city manager be fixed if he gets an application for water and sewerage for Garristown, one of the most rural parts in Ireland? Would he be compelled to give it or how would he stand in the matter? How can a man administer an office from the City Hall that will settle a question of water and sewerage for Garristown or Bohernabreena?

I think it is a monstrous proposal to ask for machinery for an administrative unit that you have not decided on yet. This House has to decide what will be the administrative unit for Dublin City and County. We have not decided that yet. There is not a word about deciding it in this Bill. We are asked to provide machinery for administering a unit we have not yet defined. I suggest that we should first have a Bill defining the unit, or let us have the whole lot in one Bill.

Mr. Hurley

The Minister made a point for this amendment with regard to the school meals in Crumlin where the school is in the county and the children attending it live in the city. How will this arrangement help to get over that difficulty? Suppose the new Dublin County Council refuses to strike a rate for school meals. I take it they will have power either to strike a rate or to refuse to strike a rate. How will the dual position affect that? I cannot see how it will, unless some provisional order is brought in and they are empowered to assume something that is not in this Bill. The Minister, as a reason for the two positions being held by the one man, made the point that things like that would be made easy. I should like the Minister to explain how that can be made easy. So far as I am aware, the striking of a rate will be the function of the county council and the city manager, acting as county manager, cannot coerce the county council if they do not want to do it. Is there any inherent authority in his position that will get over that?

Mr. Corish

I think this is an extraordinary proposal and, like Deputy Belton, I am of the opinion that this is not the appropriate time to do it. Like Deputy Belton, I consider that the report of that tribunal should be debated by this House and the limits —whatever they are going to be— defined by this House. In answer to a question, the Minister stated that Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin and the City of Dublin are to be three separate units. I should like to know to what extent they are to be three separate units. We are to have as manager the present city manager who is to be the city and county manager. It appears to me to be very peculiar that "city manager" should be mentioned before "county manager". Is the county to be subordinate to the city? It would appear from the title that the county is to be subordinate to the city. Then there is to be an assistant manager in Dun Laoghaire, which shows conclusively that the Borough of Dun Laoghaire is to be treated as subordinate to the county, or is it to be subordinate to the City of Dublin? Is he to be assistant manager to the extent that he is assistant to the city manager and that the Borough of Dun Laoghaire is to be subject to the city manager eventually?

I think the Minister ought to withdraw the amendment. Surely people have a right to consider the findings of that tribunal, and surely the Minister has no right to visualise what is going to happen, because he has not the slightest notion at this stage of what is going to happen. There are a number of amendments involved in this matter which the Minister has recounted to the House, and it is very hard for us to follow those amendments and their implications at this stage. For that reason I ask the Minister to withdraw the amendment. If, after due consideration of the findings of the tribunal, it is found that this is the most suitable way to deal with the situation, I think that would be the proper time to bring in an amendment of this kind.

Colonel Ryan

I understood from the Minister that there was to be one chief executive officer who would be responsible for the whole work of Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin and Dublin City; that he would be the executive authority and that the other two appointments will be made to enable those who are already in jobs to keep their appointments; that the city manager would be the executive authority and that the others would be appointed under him. The objection I have to the amendment is that the Minister brings in those other two men. I have no objection to the Minister's point of view in this matter otherwise, because I feel that Dublin is a fairly compact unit, not like other areas in the country. I am not for or against the amendment, but I object to that part of it making the manager in Dun Laoghaire and the secretary of the county council assistant managers. I think that is done so that he can appoint those people. I should like the Minister to explain if that is the reason for the amendment. Why make those two people as assistant managers? Why should not somebody else be appointed?

Mr. Hickey

I should like to know if the Dublin City Manager will have two distinct consultative bodies to deal with—the Dublin Corporation and the Dublin County Council. It will be a rather difficult job to do the two.

Mr. Corish

He has three.

Dr. Hannigan

The objectionable feature of this, so far as I am concerned, and I think most members of the Dublin Corporation will agree with me, is that it extends the scope of the city manager's activities to the county as well as the city. At the moment the city manager has come up in the City of Dublin against the first major crisis during his term of office, and he has quite clearly demonstrated that he is not prepared to face that responsibility. The position now is that a committee of the corporation, which has no right or functions or power, according to the Local Government (Amendment) Act, 1930, is dealing with this situation because of the failure or the unwillingness of the manager to cope with the situation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not under privilege of the Dáil attack the manager of any local body. The amendment is a very simple one, but as the Minister has introduced the question of one manager for Dublin City and County, it might be as well, even on a definition section, to go ahead with a discussion on this new issue. But amendment No. 1 is under discussion, and managers of local bodies, whether in Dublin City or otherwise, may not be attacked in this House. Had I heard the Deputy's earlier remarks I would have intervened.

Dr. Hannigan

I have no desire to attack the city manager. There is nothing that I would say behind his back that I would not say to his face.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have no control over what the Deputy might say to the manager outside this House, but he will not assail the city manager here.

Dr. Hannigan

I am talking from the point of view of extending the scope of the activities of the city manager of Dublin, who has clearly demonstrated that he is not able to cope with his present work.

Mr. Belton

I protest.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Hannigan must resume his seat. The ruling of the Chair must be obeyed. The public official in question is not in a position to defend himself against a privileged attack.

Mr. Everett

The city manager has too much to do at the present time.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair can interpret what the Deputy said.

Mr. Belton

The city manager is well able to do his job.

Dr. Hannigan

Am I not within my rights, Sir, in contending that the city manager has shown already——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will resume his seat.

Professor O'Sullivan

I am not at all clear as to what the proposal is. I have not really got the case put for it. I know that there is a series of amendments down in the name of the Minister. His Department wants to try this. I gather there will be a certain time in which the present city manager will manage the affairs of the City of Dublin sitting in the City Hall and the same man will manage the affairs of the county council sitting in the county council chambers. Is that the proposal?

Mr. Ruttledge

Yes.

Professor O'Sullivan

Will it be the same then with his two assistant managers?

Mr. Ruttledge

He will have a right to put them to the county or city.

Professor O'Sullivan

He can change them about any way he likes?

Mr. Ruttledge

Yes.

Professor O'Sullivan

Furthermore, if these amendments are carried, can the future amalgamation which is envisaged by the Minister take place without any action on the part of this House—are we to take it that this is merely to make provision that if in future this House passes legislation it will not be necessary to do anything about the question of the managership?

Mr. Ruttledge

That is the argument.

Professor O'Sullivan

What is the argument in favour of the Minister's proposal—that he is now providing for what may happen in the future— whether it is a wise thing to put on the shoulders of one man two positions, one the management of the City of Dublin and the other of the County Council of Dublin? That is, to ask the same man to take on the management of the County of Dublin, one of the richest counties, small as it is, in the country.

Mr. Corish

Yes, and Dun Laoghaire Borough.

Professor O'Sullivan

I would like the Minister to address himself to that particular problem. The Minister may reply that he will have two able helpers, two assistant city managers; that the secretary to the county council will be at least one of the city managers. He will have a secretary anyway. That will to a certain extent come to the same thing. He will not be called an assistant manager, but that is what he will be.

Mr. Ruttledge

There will be a secretary of the county council. I am not assuming that he may or may not be selected, but whoever is selected for the county, or if the present man is selected, then there will be a secretary of the county council as well.

Mr. Corish

If there was a successor to be appointed what would be his title? Would he be county and city manager?

Mr. Ruttledge

Yes.

Mr. Corish

I think the next thing we will have will be provincial managers judging from the way things are going.

Mr. Belton

Is the Minister not aware that the Borough of Dun Laoghaire, Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation object to the findings of the Greater Dublin Tribunal? There should be a decision taken on the report of that tribunal before we start setting up this machinery for Dublin.

Professor O'Sullivan

Does the division on the definition section, Sir, decide all the other amendments?

An Ceann Comhairle

No. The discussion arose on the definition section but it might more properly have taken place on amendment No. 9. However, Deputies would not be bound irrevocably to accept subsequent amendments by agreeing to amendment No. 1. I suggest that we dispose now of amendments Nos. 1 to 8 and decide the main question on No. 9.

Mr. Brennan

Some of us who are not personally interested and who have a slight knowledge of Dublin and its environs would like to know what exactly we are asked to vote about. We would like to know what difficulties would present themselves, for instance, with regard to the city manager, the county manager and the manager of Dun Laoghaire? What difficulties will confront the Minister when dealing with the report of the Greater Dublin Tribunal? I am personally at sea about it. The Minister seems to think that by putting in this amendment he would facilitate the consideration at a later stage of the Greater Dublin Tribunal report.

Mr. Cosgrave

Before the Minister answers that question and as I was not here when he made the statement, and can only judge from some of the facts as presented in the discussion that has taken place, I just want to ask one question. Is the purpose of the amendment the provision of assistant managers and county managers or is the proposal one in which it is hoped ultimately to harmonise the local government of the borough of Dun Laoghaire, the Dublin County Council and the Dublin Corporation? The three are separate institutions at the moment. Both of the two smaller bodies, that is the Dublin County Council and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire, may think that the proposal is one which will operate against them. They have now two officials who are, presumably, well acquainted with the work they are doing. They will be removed from that work and a city manager, who has not experience of the services in the county, will be called upon suddenly to take up that sphere of activity. Apart altogether from these three areas being distinct local government entities, the county is in a relatively weak position compared with what it was 15 or 20 years ago. Large and rather wealthy sections of it have been lopped off and there is a gradual spread out of the city. County expenses have increased very considerably and the services rendered in the county have not kept pace with the increased expenditure. I am not criticising the administration. I am merely pointing out that the potentiality of the county as a ratepaying area is not as great as it was 20 years ago. It was probably the wealthiest county council at one time. It is probably now one of the poorest county councils.

The proposal would appear to be a good administrative proposal. I speak purely from the theoretically administrative point of view. I am not considering the matter from the point of view of the advantage which the county or borough is going to derive from this change. Would the Minister give the House some indication of his view on this matter and would he state further whether this proposal will be left to the House or whether it will be a Party decision? A matter such as this, I think, should be left to the House. If the proposal be one by which it is hoped to harmonise the three bodies, is it further intended that other services rendered separately in each one of these areas will also be centralised? Consider the cases of the medical officer of health, the county surveyor, the borough surveyor and the various other administrative units which go to make up the body. Is it only intended to carry out this proposal in respect of the manager? Will the manager have power in his new position to move towards gradual amalgamation of these other units? I see some difficulties in the matter which the Minister, on further examination of the peculiarities of the county and city, will also perceive. It may be that an excellent case can be made for it but, in the change, I see the probability of a very considerable increase in cost. If the Minister has the information, I should like him to describe his ultimate aim apart from the immediate setting up of city and county managers.

Mr. Ruttledge

I should like to refer Deputies to the report of the Greater Dublin Tribunal. That report was laid on the Table of the House some time ago. These proposals are far-reaching, and I do not think that the present time is a suitable time for putting them into effective operation. A considerable time may elapse before that can be done, with the approval of the Oireachtas. We have to move about July to set up some other tribunal because ten years have expired since 1930. It would seem to be ridiculous to set up another tribunal when we have not had the report of the last tribunal fully examined. I do not say that that argument carries much weight, but No. 6a of the recommendations of the last tribunal reads as follows:—

"The metropolitan corporation should consist of a metropolitan council elected on the principles of the Act of 1930, with the necessary adaptations to give effect to the modifications set out below, and a metropolitan manager with the same tenure as the city manager under the Act of 1930. The council and manager should have for the metropolitan borough the same respective functions and powers as the council and manager have for the county borough under the Act of 1930, subject to the adaptations necessary to give effect to this scheme. The first manager should be appointed by the constituent statute."

That report envisaged a metropolitan council which would administer certain common services for the entire city and county and special urban services within the area designated. The remainder of the county—the really rural areas where conditions are different and rates might have to alter —would be administered by what they describe as "public sanitary authorities", dealing with certain services outside those for the urbanised or metropolitan area. A great deal of good can come by having these posts amalgamated and a liaison effected. I understand that difficulties have arisen from time to time about fire brigades and a number of other things. If you had the same manager for city and county it would make for harmony and would be of advantage to both areas. In this Bill, we are grouping councils. We are appointing one manager for two counties. Taking the matter on that basis, I think it would be an advantage. Certainly the other matter is at the back of our minds— how we can move towards the amalgamation of the city and county. I know there are difficulties. Perhaps I do not fully appreciate them. Nevertheless, considerable good can come from having the same manager for the two areas and, eventually, I think it will be found that it will be better to have the city and county amalgamated.

Mr. Belton

The Minister is really endeavouring to implement the recommendations of the Greater Dublin Tribunal? This is his first step towards that.

Mr. Ruttledge

The Deputy can take it that way, but he knows perfectly well that neither the Minister nor anybody else can do that without the approval of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Belton

Suppose that, after this step is taken, the Oireachtas rejects the report of the tribunal? Are you not putting the cart before the horse? Get the Oireachtas to approve of that report first and then go on with your amalgamation.

Mr. Ruttledge

Even then, I think there would be advantage in it.

Mr. Belton

The three bodies representing the whole of the county—the county council, the Borough Council of Dun Laoghaire and Dublin Corporation—are unanimously opposed to the recommendations contained in this report and they should get some consideration.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister said that there was a case in respect of appointing the manager of two counties. There may be a case in the Bill, but it has not been presented to us. This is somewhat different. This is the case of a municipality, with all the services which a municipality can give, such as water, sewerage, light and so on. You have a county with a very much longer road surface in which these services cannot be given. There is a difference between the sort of administration which would appertain to a city like Dublin or a borough like Dun Laoghaire, which is very much the same as a city, a small example of a city. The Minister did not tell us about that particular part of it. While there is a case in the Bill regarding a county manager for two counties— it is not made to us, but we are assuming that it is—there is a marked difference, and I should like some information other than merely talk of harmonising things. I can quite appreciate the advisability of harmonising things, because there has been for a great number of years some little friction, although in most cases it is not so marked as it was. I remember on one occasion actions pending between different local authorities in and around the city in cases where the ratepayers would have to pay the expenses no matter which side won— the ratepayers of each one of them.

Professor O'Sullivan

There are some things that the Minister might clear up. The main argument, I gather from the Minister, is that if ever there is a question of amalgamation as affecting a metropolitan council, the administrative machinery will be there without further change. But in order to bring about that amalgamation a new Bill will have to be put before the House and passed. It seems to me that is the more natural time to bring about the amalgamation of the managerships. I am not prepared to find any great objection to that, but I am not clear yet on two things. One is with reference to having one man in the two jobs. It is not a common managership; it is simply one man holding two very distinct jobs. How does that enable a combined service to be provided?

The Minister gave one example, the district of Crumlin, where the school is in the county and the most of the children attending come from the city. The manager there is, as it were, two different persons, responsible to two different bodies. He is the manager of two authorities, quite as much as if he were two persons. How is he to get over that difficulty? How is he to solve that problem that is brought forward by the Minister as the one illustration? If he were the common manager of the two bodies I could understand it, but he is in an independent position in both cases. I admit the influence of a manager may be so great that he may be able to bring about a certain amount of harmony, but that is quite problematical. The other point is whether it is wise to take a man whose experience has been that of managing a city and put him a very different problem in addition. Though he has an assistant manager, the responsibility will always be his. You put him a very difficult problem in addition to his ordinary duties of manager because he has to take responsibility for the county. That is what the Minister has not justified.

Mr. Fogarty

I am in agreement with the Minister that a gread deal of good may come from the amendment, and will probably come from it. The Dublin County Council did not unanimously turn down the report of the Greater Dublin Tribunal.

Mr. Belton

At any rate, they turned it down.

Mr. Fogarty

I moved its adoption and that motion was seconded and that makes at least two in favour of it. I forget exactly what the decision was, but I feel certain that if there was a majority turning it down, it was not a very big majority. I will look the matter up to-morrow. I wonder are Deputies aware that a great deal of the services in County Dublin at present come from the city? We are always howling at the city for water and the Dublin water supply serves a big number of towns in the county. There seems to be a great deal of alarm about the city manager taking control in the county and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire. Some people imagine he would not be able to deal with it.

At present a number of the services in County Dublin are administered by a majority of the Dublin Corporation. Poor law assistance is administered by the Dublin Board of Assistance, on which there is a majority of eight or nine members of the corporation, and that poor law assistance takes in at least half the County of Dublin. The infirmary for the county is in the middle of Dublin City and it is controlled by the same body. Portion of the city sewerage system is utilised by the county. We have not even a fire brigade in the county.

Mr. Belton

Nor have we one in the city at the moment.

Mr. Fogarty

I can see one good thing in this, at any rate. When the city manager is in charge of the county we can have some claim on the Dublin Fire Brigade.

Mr. Belton

Not necessarily.

Mr. Everett

Deputy Fogarty is making a bad case.

Mr. Fogarty

There will at least be closer co-operation between the city and the county than there has been heretofore.

Mr. Belton

Not a bit more.

Mr. Fogarty

As a representative of the people I am not as much alarmed as other Deputies here at the effect of this amendment. I think a great deal of good will come from it. The only thing that is worrying Deputy Everett is that this County Management Bill will clip his wings in Wicklow.

Mr. Everett

Deputy Fogarty need not talk about clipping anybody's wings. If anybody can talk about Deputy Fogarty I can.

Mr. Fogarty

The Minister pointed out that the Borough of Dun Laoghaire will still be intact and the County Council of Dublin will still be intact. There need not be such alarm and I honestly believe that a great deal of good will come from the amendment.

Mr. Corish

I would appeal again to the Minister to withdraw the amendment. It is obvious to everybody that this is not the appropriate time to introduce such an amendment. The Minister is visualising something which may come when the report of the Greater Dublin Tribunal is implemented, if it ever is. He has laid it down definitely here that there are two different positions and one man is to be both a county and a city manager. That is a preposterous proposal.

Deputy Fogarty has spent about five minutes telling the House that he thinks that it will do this and do that, but he has not the slightest conception of what it is going to do. How can the one person be a county manager and a city manager at the same time? The job of the Dublin City Manager is a very big one. Everybody knows the enormous amount of work he has to do. To ask the same individual to be county manager and city manager as well is, I think, to ask him to do a thing that no man is equal to, even if he is the superman that he is supposed to be, and as well to be assistant manager for Dun Laoghaire Borough.

Everybody knows that there is usually a conflict of opinion between the council in charge of a rural area and the council in charge of a city area. Is this particular superman to interpret the views of both the city and the county when we all know that there is always a great conflict of opinion as between the city and the county? The proposition that is being put before the House is an impossible one. I think it is the most laughable one that has ever come before the House.

Dr. Hannigan

I should like to take this opportunity of correcting the erroneous impression which Deputy Fogarty apparently has with regard to the composition of the Dublin Board of Assistance. It consists of 11 members, six of whom represent the Dublin Corporation, three represent the Dublin County Council, of which Deputy Fogarty is a member, and two are co-opted members.

Mr. Belton

Co-opted by the six and the three.

Dr. Hannigan

Yes. My purpose in rising to speak was to say that the Minister must surely be aware that one-sixth of the population of the whole country is concentrated in Dublin City. Therefore, the management of a city, with a population of 500,000, carries with it a very heavy responsibility. Even during the past week the city manager himself has signified his incapacity to cope with the situation.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think we should not have that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not in order on the amendment.

Mr. Corish

I do not think the Deputy means to question the ability of the man for his job, but rather to suggest that the job is so big that he cannot reach on it.

Dr. Hannigan

He has signified that he is not prepared to accept the very big responsibility which attaches to him in connection with the crisis which has arisen this week as defined in the Local Government Act of 1930.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think that the question of the Dublin strike ought to be left out of consideration for the moment.

Dr. Hannigan

Surely it is quite unfair for the Minister to throw the onus of managing the affairs of the county on the present city manager seeing that that is the position at the moment. I can say that times out of number—I am sure every member of the corporation has had the same experience—the city managers we have had have complained of their very big responsibilities, and I am quite certain that Mr. Hernon, or whoever else it might be, would not willingly undertake the extra duties which this section in the Bill proposes to place on his shoulders.

Mr. Belton

I should like to refer briefly to one point the Minister made about the Crumlin schools. Is there anything in this Bill that will solve the Crumlin difficulty? The church and schools there were built to accommodate an expanding area. The development in that area, so far, has been practically entirely in the city. The Minister's Department gave a big grant of money to the Dublin County Council to build a road through the county area to link up with the corporation housing scheme that was making provision for the people and children who would fill the church and schools. The question of school meals has arisen there. I am not well up on the point, but I take it that the provision of school meals in the area in which the school is situate is a matter for the local authority in that area. It is the local authority, I understand, that must raise the money.

In this case the Dublin County Council naturally did not raise the money to provide schools for the children who came out of the city area. Even the amalgamation of the managership, having the one man for the city and county, will not rectify the the present position because I take it that until there is a change by statute of the administrative area of the county council, and until the wedge that includes this school is transferred to the city area, the situation will remain precisely as it is to-day. Where then is the Minister's argument for those amendments? I am afraid that by a kind of trick the civil servants in the Department of Local Government and the Minister—I do not know whether it is the civil servants who are urging the Minister or the Minister urging the civil servants—are despite the wishes of the people of Dublin City and County, attempting to put this over by a sort of side wind. It is going to be put over in a disguised manner so that we do not know what is happening. I am sure Deputy Hannigan did not mean what he said about the city manager. He and I, as members of the corporation, were opposed to the appointment of the present city manager. I have nothing to say of the present city manager except to pay him the highest tribute for his efficiency and ability. He is prepared to stand up to any situation. He has not shirked the present situation, but has stood up to it. We who have been elected by the people and who have to provide the money, if any extra charges are made on the city, have come into the breach and are going to stand up to the situation too.

Dr. Hannigan

On a point of personal explanation, I should like to point out that I had no hand, act or part in the appointment of the present city manager, nor have I expressed on any occasion my opposition to his appointment.

Mr. Byrne

In view of the fact that the Minister referred to the Crumlin schools I should like to know from him what his intentions are with regard to that school and to the School Meals Act so far as it concerns that area.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. Byrne

I understand that in your absence the Minister referred to it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He made a passing reference to it in his introductory speech, but it has no relation to the amendments before the House.

Mr. Byrne

It was used as a lever and I do not want to give any wrong impression outside. What I should like to know from the Minister is this: if the present city manager becomes manager of the County Dublin will the fact of his appointment give him power to bring into operation at an early date the School Meals Act for the Crumlin schools? There is a situation out there which is becoming rather alarming. I am anxious to know what was in the Minister's mind when he referred to the Crumlin schools. These schools are only 200 yards outside the city boundary. If the appointment of the city manager as county manager does not mean that it will automatically bring the Crumlin schools into the city area, I would like the Minister to clear up that point when he is replying because a number of members here are very anxious to see, as Deputy Belton has pointed out, that these schools are brought by statute into the city area, and not by the mere appointment of a manager.

Mr. Cosgrave

When the Minister is replying I hope he will deal with the point of the city and county manager attending the meetings of different bodies. The corporation presumably meets once a month. The county council meets once a month, and, presumably the Dun Laoghaire Borough Council meets once a month. That means that the manager will have to devote three days to attendance of the meetings of these bodies. It is probable that he will have to attend three times as many meetings as heretofore. Will it be part of his duty to attend all those meetings? Local authorities are sometimes inclined to be jealous of their prerogatives. One can easily foresee the objections that would be raised by one of these bodies if the manager should absent himself from its meetings. On that point it might be said that the assistant manager could attend. That is quite true, but it is unlikely that that would give the same satisfaction to the council as if the manager was there.

Mr. Ruttledge

I suppose the manager would have power to delegate his powers in certain circumstances. I do not think that will be necessary in regard to meetings or anything like that, but in the exercise of certain functions he would certainly have to delegate them. Nothing more is sought in this proposal, but Deputies seem to consider that the area is too big or the number of institutions or the population. There is nothing more in it than that for the city manager, and when there is reference made to Crumlin, the manager of both bodies could more easily appreciate the situation than where you have a county council that is deriving no benefit from the school except that it happens to be 20 yards inside its area. If we consider the administration of Dublin City and County there is considerable overlapping. You have a public assistance district for the city and part of the county. Arrangements for institutional treatment are common to both, the mental hospitals are common to both, and the water supply of the city supplies a large portion of the county. There may be other things that do not occur to me, but when you find a position like that, without thinking of the Greater Dublin Tribunal recommendations, you can see a considerable advantage, if you could move towards that amalgamation which, I believe, will eventually come. In the meantime you are making towards securing greater harmony between both bodies than by having people in separate positions. There is not very much economy in it.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is there any?

Mr. Ruttledge

There is not much economy, I believe.

Mr. Belton

Is there any efficiency in it?

Mr. Ruttledge

The position is this, that if you leave the present manager in Dun Laoghaire, and if you carry on in Dublin with a city manager, it is almost inevitable that you will have to have an assistant in County Dublin. If you had an assistant manager that you could move from one place to another you could add additional work. You have Balrothery and Rathdown Boards of Public Assistance, Grangegorman Mental Hospital, Howth Urban Council, Deans Grange Burial Ground and the port sanitary authority.

Mr. Cosgrave

Membership of that is not a very onerous job.

Mr. Belton

How often does that body meet?

Mr. Cosgrave

They could discharge their business in five minutes.

Mr. Ruttledge

I am not putting any more into the Bill than to ask the Committee to group both bodies.

Professor O'Sullivan

Do I understand that if you do not proceed with the provisions now proposed in the Bill, that County Dublin will have a manager and an assistant manager?

Mr. Ruttledge

That may be possible.

Professor O'Sullivan

Is that contemplated? The Minister wants to add other important business to the already overloaded city manager.

Mr. Ruttledge

Because you cannot transfer them around.

Professor O'Sullivan

This is obviously a second thought. Here is a Bill that was well thought out by the Minister, by his advisers and by his predecessor. The Minister now has charge of it, and I suppose this is a second thought on his part. This raises a number of problems, and from speeches I heard in the House, and that of the one Deputy who supported the Minister, it is obvious that the House does not know what it is voting on. I think Deputy Everett was quite right in refusing to accept advice from Deputy Fogarty who, it was quite obvious, was enthusiastic because he thought this proposal would accomplish a great deal more than it will accomplish. The only thing that can be accomplished will be to increase the burden on the city manager, but there is a pious hope that it may lead to harmony. As to the example the Minister brought forward, he did not show how it is going to solve the question. Will there be two different bodies to deal with the county council and the corporation?

Mr. Byrne

The Minister glossed over the point I made and gave no definite answer to it. He said the reason the Crumlin schools were mentioned was that the city manager could appreciate the difficulty that exists there. What will he do as well as appreciate the difficulty? Will the city manager have power to make an order applying the School Meals Act to Crumlin, without coming here and making an application to have the city boundary extended to that portion of the county in which these schools are situate? It will be known that the Crumlin schools were mentioned and a false belief will be created that the School Meals Act will be applied there by the Dublin Corporation, if the amendment is passed. The corporation however states that the city manager, after a resolution has been passed by the corporation, can apply to the Minister for an extension of the boundaries. It was only this week that I interviewed the city manager and the law agent with a view to having the School Meals Act applied to Crumlin, and I found that there is a very costly procedure to be gone through, preparing plans and maps as well as advertising. The Minister merely glossed over that and created an atmosphere that suggests that if the Bill gets through the city manager can make the necessary order. Is that so? Does the Minister intend to give that power? If he does it will ease the situation considerably.

Mr. Ruttledge

The city manager can make a provisional order after holding an inquiry.

Mr. Byrne

After holding an inquiry?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has got an answer and there can be no further reference to that matter.

Mr. Byrne

There has to be long drawn-out and costly procedure.

Mr. Ruttledge

If the matter is left to the Deputy it will be long drawnout.

Mr. Byrne

The House has been left under the impression that power would be given.

Mr. Hickey

I would agree with this proposal if you had one authority representing Dun Laoghaire Borough, Dublin Corporation and the county council. I cannot see how it would work when there are three consultative bodies to be dealt with. A question has been raised about the public assistance boards. Will not the same problem confront the county and the city manager seeing that representations will come from the county and the city? I suggest to the Minister that the worst thing he could do is to disassociate the people in the county from close contact with public boards in the city. The best way is to leave the city manager in Dublin, the borough manager in Dun Laoghaire and a manager in County Dublin. Then you will get more efficient service.

Mr. Belton

If the Dublin County and City manager, as he will be if this goes through, is not able, through illness or otherwise, to attend to his duties, will the assistant managers be interchangeable into the city?

Mr. Ruttledge

Yes.

Mr. Belton

Who is going to pay the salary—the city or county?

Mr. Ruttledge

That will be apportioned on the rateable valuation.

Professor O'Sullivan

Will the salary be fixed in the Bill?

Mr. Ruttledge

No, it will not be fixed in the Bill.

Mr. Belton

I should like to ask the Minister how he will get the Dublin County Council to strike a rate to provide meals for school children in Crumlin owing to the fact that the manager is to form a link between the city and county. I take it that under the Bill the county council will still be the rate-striking authority, and that this will not alter that situation one iota.

Mr. Ruttledge

I understand that only the school is in the county and that the children come to it from the city areas.

Mr. Belton

I understand that when the school is situated in the county it is the county authority alone that can strike a rate to provide the meals there.

Mr. Ruttledge

You can extend the area of the city.

Mr. Belton

You can extend the city area without having any juggling with managers. You cannot extend the area by juggling with managers.

Professor O'Sullivan

Is a similar proposal to be put into effect in Cork City and County?

Mr. Corish

Not at the moment. This is the thin edge of the wedge.

Professor O'Sullivan

We ought to know what we are voting on—what it is letting us in for.

Mr. Ruttledge

It is not being done in Cork.

Mr. Victory

Are the people in Dublin City something different from the people in the county? Are they a different race of people? If so, we will have the same argument applied to the people in every town in the country.

Mr. Keyes

I think this is a very dangerous proposal. Since the Second Reading we have had it indicated clearly that the Government are advancing towards a dictatorship eventually. They only applied this to Dublin City on the Second Reading, now they are incorporating Dublin City and County, and the probability is that we will next have all Leinster included under a superman. Deputy Victory asks what is the difference between Dublin City and County. After we have had a manager for Leinster, we will probably have one for Munster, and after that we will probably have one for Connaught. The Government are proceeding in that direction. In the Bill as passed on Second Reading, they gave Dublin City one manager and the county another. When they got that, they went further when they thought the going was good. Now it is proposed to have a manager for Dublin City, Dublin County and Dun Laoghaire. I cannot see where they will get a man to control three councils elected by the people. Apparently, the councils are not to have any views— the manager is to be in control. That is the purpose of the Bill. I think this discussion is futile. The Government will force this through with their majority.

Mr. Belton

Is the amendment in order at all? According to the Bill as passed on Second Reading, there was to be a manager for each area. Now an amendment is introduced putting them under the manager of the metropolitan area. Does that not alter the principle of the Bill as passed on Second Reading?

Mr. P.S. Doyle

I am sure the Minister will appreciate that there is a certain amount of confusion caused by the tabling of this amendment at this stage, particularly in view of the Second Reading debate. It strikes me that this is part of some new legislation which is foreshadowed regarding local government; that the Minister is making some provision here for something that is to come. If that is so, it would be well that it should be explained. On the Second Reading of the last Local Government Bill, I and other Deputies suggested that the Minister might consider introducing all the Bills dealing with local government so as to give the House an opportunity of knowing how they were all going to fit in. Perhaps that is the line the Minister is taking now, and it might clear the air as regards this amendment.

Mr. Hickey

I understand that the same principle may apply to the City and County of Cork.

Mr. Ruttledge

Not at the moment. Cork is a very big county.

Mr. Hurley

Will the Dublin City Management Act require to be amended if this is passed? I understand that in that Act it was laid down that the manager was to be appointed for the City of Dublin. Now that has been extended to the county. Does it fit in with that Act? I should like to get a ruling on that point.

Mr. Corish

You will know that in about two years' time.

Professor O'Sullivan

I understand that under the Bill the Minister will fix the salary. There will be two separate salaries fixed, because there are two different positions.

Mr. Ruttledge

No, there will not be two separate salaries.

Professor O'Sullivan

The Bill lays down that the salary will be fixed by the Minister for the manager. There are three managers here. It is the same person, but he will have to have three separate salaries. Otherwise he is a joint manager, and that is precisely what he is not. That is the whole point. He is not a joint manager. The Minister made that clear in answer to me.

Mr. Ruttledge

A salary will be fixed for the persons who occupy these posts and it will be apportioned between the city and the county on the rateable valuation. As to the question raised about this Bill being in order, I would ask the Deputy to look at amendment No. 99.

Mr. Cosgrave

On the rateable valuation?

Mr. Ruttledge

According to the rateable valuation.

Mr. Cosgrave

Could the Minister tell us in rough outline what the respective valuations are?

Mr. Ruttledge

I could not.

Professor O'Sullivan

There was a point of order raised and I understand the Minister was replying to it. Does he suggest that amendment No. 99 disposes of the point of order?

Mr. Corish

Amendment No. 99 deals with the question we raised, and justifies our asking the question.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think it would be a mistake to divide the House upon the amendment if it makes for administrative efficiency and if it is a contructive step. Perhaps it would be possible to leave over the amendment to give the Minister an opportunity of strengthening the case for it. I find myself in a difficulty in connection with this amendment. On the general principle, without going into details, if there are services which ought to be under a particular central control, obviously there is a case for the amendment. I am not satisfied that the Minister has said that that is so. It is quite true that you have mental hospital institutional treatment, water and so on. But there are other difficulties and problems that I think this new management will make more difficult to be solved. Not the least of them is that one I mentioned when, say, the Dublin County Council meets on a Tuesday. Perhaps the corporation would meet on the same day. It does not often happen that that would be so, but there will be a certain amount of resentment. It is characteristic of local authorities that when their prerogatives are interfered with, there is resentment. In so far as this means harmonising services it is a good thing that it should be done and this must harmonise some of them. Then you have the case mentioned by Deputy Alderman Byrne which is a problem in itself and which will probably make the person who occupies this office unpopular with both sides.

I am not satisfied with regard to the services that the manager can render, impersonally if I may say so, on each of these bodies. It does not appear that there is likely to be much conflict between the Dun Laoghaire Borough Council and the City of Dublin. But with regard to the County Council of Dublin I see difficulties. I said there are difficulties with regard to the Dublin County Council and I will mention one of them. There are parts of the county in which the water supply is not satisfactory. One can easily see that the manager will be the responsible executive officer for that kind of problem. As I see it the position will be rendered very difficult. People will say: "Well, if a man paying 5/- a week rates on a house in the City of Dublin can be supplied with water, a man in the county who is paying 7/6 a week in rates should get it, but he cannot." How are we situated in the matter of lighting? Every street in the City of Dublin and in the Borough of Dun Laoghaire is lighted, whereas the county roads are not. You will have complaints made that the services of the ambulance are always available in the city on a telephone call and that the county is neglected. This principle of management I am prepared to accept. I have accepted it for many years, but I think there is the danger in this particular case of making the office unpopular and making it more difficult to work. While it presents in theory administrative facility it will create difficulty having regard to the big divergences between the county and city.

Mr. Belton

Will the assistant manager have as full a power as the manager to function in the respective areas? The Minister knows that though the manager is a corporation existing in theory, his function is to sit in committee with the officials of the Department, and the orders he makes have statutory effect. The same man will have to do a lot. He will have to get to the county council and perform not only the functions of the county council, but the functions of the board of health, the function of a couple of boards of assistance, the functions of the Grangegorman Mental Hospital and so on. There will be monthly meetings of the borough council, of the county council and of the boards of health. The latter meetings are fortnightly and the boards of assistance weekly. Then he will have the monthly meetings of the corporation in addition to the Joint Purposes Committee and the other committee meetings he will have to attend. I could understand the amalgamation with one body representing the whole of the county and city meeting together and forming one advisory council. I can understand the practicability of such a proposal but I cannot understand the practicability or utility of three elected bodies in the county and city with one general manager for the whole lot. I do not think that is feasible or practical at all.

The Minister, under this disguise and through a Bill that up to now had not anything to do with the City of Dublin or the County of Dublin and which did not affect the administration of the city at all, is endeavouring to get this House to adopt the report of the Greater Dublin Tribunal. Now every witness who came to give evidence at that tribunal was against any portion of the county being taken into the city. They did not make a case for that until they were asked what portion of the county they would prefer taken if any of it were taken. We were informed that some of it was to be taken. It was then we made a case for the developed areas to be taken in. But in doing so we made a preamble that we did not want any to be taken in, but if it were a matter that some area was to be taken in, it was the developed areas we wanted taken.

It is very unfair for the Minister with a Whip and with a machined majority to force this Bill upon the county council. We had Deputy Victory, the city specialist from the Longford side of the country, saying why not go on with the Bill. The Longford Deputy compares his little crossroads with the metropolis of the country. Well, Longford is my native place but I know the problems in Dublin. I am in the unique position that I am a member of the three bodies concerned. I know a little of the jealousies mentioned. Let us consider the financial position of these three bodies. The Dublin County Council can borrow money at 4 per cent. Dublin City can borrow money at 5 per cent., and they have been compelled even to pay as much as 5¾ per cent. It is only this week that the Borough of Dun Laoghaire borrowed £100,000 of which £77,000 was borrowed at 4½ per cent. and £23,000 at 4¼ per cent., the sinking fund not to operate for a period of three years. That money is for housing for the Borough of Dun Laoghaire. When the borough is amalgamated with the City of Dublin will they be in a position to get money at that rate? Dun Laoghaire does not want amalgamation. This is a huge problem. This is a Government amendment to the original Bill and I submit, Sir, that it is completely out of order. We passed the Second Reading of the County Management Bill, and when we did so, the Bill did not relate in any way to the City of Dublin. This amendment now is to put the administration of the whole city and county into the hands of one manager against the wishes of the people generally of Dublin City and County. I think that is a monstrous proposition.

Mr. Bennett

I do not want to chip into this quarrel but I am interested in the line taken by Deputy Keyes a moment ago. When Acts are passed concerning Dublin, they generally come to be applied to Cork and Limerick. When we start amalgamation on these lines in Dublin, we shall probably follow suit in Cork in 12 months and then the turn of Limerick will come. My objection to the whole Bill is that it savours too much of centralisation. Would it not be better to adjourn this amendment for further consideration because there is too much of the city mentality behind legislation of this kind. Why not adopt the suggestion of Deputy Cosgrave and let the matter go without appointing the city manager to take charge of the county. It would, I think, be better to leave the matter over.

Mr. Brennan

I appeal to the Minister to consider carefully the point put to him by the Leader of the Opposition. His suggestion might ease the whole situation. There is no conflict of interest between Dublin and Dun Laoghaire. Between Dublin City and County there is a conflict of interest. When we are endeavouring to find some kind of machinery for this purpose, it is a mistake to introduce antagonism of any sort. Unless we can get a better machine, it is not worth making the change. If antagonism is introduced, it will operate against the working of the whole Act. Seeing that there is no conflict between Dublin and Dun Laoghaire, why should not the Minister agree to group these two areas and let Dublin County stand by itself? Any alteration of the city boundaries must be made by statute. I do not see how joint managership will make for harmony as between the county and city. If the Minister would agree to deal with Dublin and Dun Laoghaire only and to let the county run its own affairs, he would, possibly, find that harmony would result and I think we would all be agreeable to that course.

Mr. Ruttledge

I do not think that there is any necessity for worrying as to how this scheme will work out. We are grouping counties which have nothing in common and we are putting a county manager over them. The only question that arises is whether the city manager would be able to carry out the city and county work. I believe he will. If he is not, we can come back to the House with an amending Bill and ask for power to appoint an assistant manager.

Mr. Brennan

It is a bad principle.

Mr. Ruttledge

There is a great deal of community of interest between city and county and this proposal will make for harmony between them. I should like to accede to the request of the Opposition if any purpose would be served by doing so.

Mr. McMenamin

Many of us have no interest in this matter, which is a purely local question. The House was, however, very generous to the Minister on Second Reading, and I do not think it is fair to ask us to enter into this conflict on a local issue raised by way of amendment. There is a serious conflict of view and the Minister should, I think, adopt the suggestion of Deputy Cosgrave. I leave aside the question whether or not this amendment fits in with the Long Title of the Bill. This is a new principle entirely and, on account of the substantial agreement which obtained in the House on Second Reading, this proposal regarding the county should be either modified or withdrawn. We have been two hours debating this amendment. I think the Minister should accept the proposal of Deputy Cosgrave as a compromise and leave the matter over to the Report Stage.

Question—"That the amendments proposed be made"—put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 29.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Cleary, Mícheál.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Crowley, Fred Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Friel, John.
• Fuller, Stephen.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kelly, James P.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Francis.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McDevitt, Henry A.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Munnelly, John.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Brigid M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Conn.

Níl

• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George C.
• Broderick, William J.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Corish, Richard.
• Curran, Richard.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Davin, William.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hannigan, Joseph.
• Hickey, James.
• Hughes, James.
• Hurley, Jeremiah.
• Keating, John.
• Keyes, Michael.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Sullivan, John.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Keyes and Linehan; Níl: Deputies Smith and Brady.

Question declared carried.

Mr. Ruttledge

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (1), page 3, to add at the end of the sub-section the following definitions:—

"the word ‘rate' does not include a rate payable by consumers for a supply of water or a private improvement rate levied by a sanitary authority under Section 229 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, or under Section 4 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896;

the word ‘superannuation' includes compensation for loss of office or employment;

the expression ‘the Corporation of Dublin' means the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Dublin."

This is merely a drafting amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

The same point arises in three subsequent amendments, Nos. 66, 69, and 94.

Professor O'Sullivan

The Minister says this is a drafting amendment, but it may be remembered that on one occasion an amendment was got through the House here on the grounds that it was merely a drafting amendment, when it was much more than that. However, I suppose we can trust the Minister?

Mr. Ruttledge

Yes. It is a drafting amendment. The rates are a reserved function, but where there was a special rate for garages or people who get special rates in respect of water supplies, it is really a rent.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 3 is similar to No. 1.

Mr. Ruttledge

I move amendment No. 3:—

In sub-section (2), paragraph (e), page 3, line 33, to delete the words "the borough of Dun Laoghaire".

Mr. Corish

This is consequential on the passing of the first amendment?

Mr. Ruttledge

Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 42, 43 and 44 all seem to deal with the same point.

Professor O'Sullivan

That is right.

An Ceann Comhairle

Then the issue should be decided now on amendment No. 4.

Professor O'Sullivan

I move amendment No. 4:—

In sub-section (3), line 39, after the word "borough" and after the word "council" to insert in each case the words "save as hereinafter excepted".

Apart from the exact number to be fixed in the matter of exclusion, the Minister may remember that on the Second Reading of the Bill I spoke strongly in favour of the general principle of the Bill. The reason I spoke in favour of the principle of the Bill was that under modern circumstances it was becoming more and more impossible for a body like a county council to deal with a large area, that, consequently, their members seldom came together and had not an opportunity of consulting with each other frequently on the various problems. There was the further point that administration had become so complicated, and so many duties were cast upon the local authorities, that it was practicably impossible for the county council, without a manager, to deal with these particular problems. These, I think, were the principal arguments that I thought would induce anybody to support the general principle of this Bill, and I put it to the Minister that these arguments do not apply to a town, and that everything is to be gained by leaving the town so far as possible to conduct its own affairs.

The members of a town council meet each other practically every day, and several times a day sometimes. They can discuss fully and have constantly before them the business of their urban district. They are fully familiar with all the problems and all their details much more than any county manager could be. As I say, they are familiar with the problems and they are acquainted with everybody who lives in the town. I think there would be a loss to the initiative connected with local administration. After all, we interfered with them considerably in appointing a manager, but did so because we thought it inevitable, but I think there would be a loss and not a gain if there is a further reduction of a town council. I am not wedded to the figure of 10,000, as I said before. Of course, an increase in the figure would defeat the purpose of the amendment because it would rule out a number of people, but if the Minister suggests certain things in that regard, I have no objection. I do put it to the Minister, however, that little will be gained and that a considerable amount of real touch with affairs may be lost if he does not see his way to accept this amendment.

Mr. Corish

There is a similar amendment down in my name, and I would appeal to the Minister to accept the principle of these amendments. As Deputy O'Sullivan has pointed out, there may be a case to be made for a manager to be appointed to a county area. A rural area is generally long and straggling and it is not so easy to get the members to come together as it is in the case of a confined area such as a town. As I said on the Second Reading, the problems confronting an urban authority are very different from those confronting a rural authority, and to my mind it will be impossible to get a manager to understand the problems of both town and rural areas and be able to apply himself to the solving of these problems in the same way that it has been done up to this. By the passing of this Bill, a county manager is going to control boroughs such as Wexford, Kilkenny and Sligo, which have old charters. The particular borough that I represent, Wexford, has one of the oldest charters in Great Britain or Ireland, I think, and people are naturally jealous of that. To my mind, the placing of a county manager over an area such as Wexford, Kilkenny or Sligo certainly reduces the status of that particular area.

If the Minister does not see his way to accept the amendment as it appears now, I wonder would he consider the appointment of a manager for a group of urban areas inside a county. I think he will find that he would get more efficiency from a system of that kind than he would from the appointment of a county manager who would have towns and town councils subordinate to him. I appeal to the Minister to consider this favourably. There is, as I said, a marked difference of opinion between the county councils and the urban councils. The manager, of course, will have to attend meetings of both bodies, and I am sure he will find himself in conflict with either or both of their opinions at different times, but it will be absolutely impossible for him to interpret the views both of the urban and rural authorities. They usually differ on a great many things and have a different outlook on various problems. The Minister would be well advised to separate the rural and urban authorities under this Bill.

Mr. Linehan

I should like to support this amendment. I believe that, while the feeling in the country is generally in favour of the system proposed under this Bill, there is a great lot to be said for the separation of the urban councils. If the Minister is accepting these amendments, I think he should except all these councils rather than put a restriction on them as to population. As Deputy Corish pointed out, there would be a conflict of opinion, and I do not think that the same arguments could be advanced in favour of bringing in urban councils under this Bill as in other cases.

I believe that in practically every urban area they would feel that a certain amount of their power over their business was being completely taken away if it were going to be under the county manager. I do not think that it would affect the value that, I believe, would come from this Bill if the Minister agreed to exclude the urban council from the jurisdiction of the county manager. It is the one thing under the Bill which I do not like. I would be quite satisfied with the Bill in its entirety if the Minister agreed to remove the urban council from the jurisdiction of the county manager. I am satisfied with the Bill in principle as long as it abolishes the one thing it ought to abolish, that is, the boards of health.

Mr. Ruttledge

I do not see that there can be any conflict between the manager who is manager of the county council and the urban councils; I do not see that any conflict can arise between them. The manager will have his work carried out, to a great extent, by the town clerks under these various councils. He is purely an administrator, to see that the work is done, to see that the clerk does his work and to see that the services are attended to. I think Deputies are altogether exaggerating the importance of this matter. Even if it were a question of prestige, I do not think there is anything in it, as the county council will be under the county manager just the same as the urban council.

Mr. Corish

But the urban council will not be under the county council?

Professor O'Sullivan

Does the Minister not see that he is taking away local power, to a certain extent, that there is under the managerial system? The House is agreeing to that—we are agreeing to it, as we think it necessary. We think, however, that as little as possible should be taken away and when there are cases where towns are able to manage these questions themselves, without damage to general efficiency, the Minister should be ready to except them. It is not a case of putting together people having different interests; here you can leave local administration untouched, and why not do it?

Mr. Ruttledge

The Deputy is trying to get managers for the towns?

Professor O'Sullivan

No; leave them as they are. That cuts across the whole principle. I think that one amendment has been proposed to have a manager for towns of over 10,000 population.

Mr. Corish

I do not mind that. If there is going to be a management system, why not have a distinction between rural and urban areas?

Mr. Linehan

Will the Minister leave that out altogether?

Mr. Corish

Perhaps he would tell us whether he would accept that amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy wish to press the amendment?

Mr. Corish

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

A decision on amendment No. 4 will cover amendments Nos. 4 and 5, and two subsequent amendments.

Question put: "That the words be so inserted."

The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 57.

Tá

• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George C.
• Broderick, William J.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Corish, Richard.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hannigan, Joseph.
• Hickey, James.
• Hughes, James.
• Hurley, Jeremiah.
• Keating, John.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Linehan, Timothy.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Sullivan, John.
• Reidy, James.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Cleary, Mícheál.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Crowley, Fred Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Friel, John.
• Fuller, Stephen.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Francis.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McDevitt, Henry A.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Munnelly, John.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Brigid M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Conn.

Amendment No. 4 declared lost.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.35 p.m. until Thursday, 7th March, at 3 p.m.