I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £523,460, be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1944, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, and certain Services administered by that Office, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, sundry Miscellaneous Grants and Grants-in-Aid, and certain charges connected with Hospitals.
I presume that the Supplementary Estimate will be discussed on the main Vote.
This is the first year in which the county management system has been in operation throughout the country, and the first in which the estimates for the local services in general have been framed and presented to the county and urban authorities by managers. It is gratifying to find that, with one or two exceptions, the local bodies, when considering these Estimates, have acted in the spirit in which the County Management Act was conceived, and dealt with them in a serious and responsible way.
The House, of course, is familiar with the fact that the County Management Act of 1940, whilst relieving the elected bodies of responsibility for the details of the local administration, preserves to them full financial control. This pre-supposes that this control will be exercised reasonably and intelligently; that on the one hand the local authorities will not commit themselves to wild schemes or extravagant expenditure, and, on the other, that they will make due provision for the maintenance of the essential county services. It was not contemplated that any local authority would exercise that control in an arbitrary and irresponsible fashion. Not alone was such a proceeding not to be thought of but it could not be tolerated, for, if it were, the whole system of local government in the area concerned would be brought to ruin, to the detriment, of course, of the community as a whole. Accordingly, where an elective body continues to refuse to make proper provision for the maintenance of the local services there can be no other choice but to dissolve it in order to ensure that the services and properties of the local authority and of the local community concerned will be properly preserved. I have a great reluctance to take such a drastic step, even though it prove eventually to be unavoidable, for I firmly believe that in this country the elected bodies are an essential element in any system of municipal or local government. They embody the principle of popular control, and that is a principle which, in my opinion, we must do everything possible to maintain.
Elected bodies, however, will be effective instruments of government only so long as their members recognise that the powers vested in them are of such far-reaching consequences that they must be exercised with good sense, discretion and providence. Much damage, much hardship, may be occasioned by the misuse of such powers, and therefore, when the members of a local authority do misuse them, and in doing so manifest that as individuals they are not fit to be entrusted with them, there is no option, so far as the Minister who is responsible for the local government of the country is concerned, but to deprive them of their office and of the opportunities for injuring the community which that office affords.
A local authority exists for the purpose of ensuring that the affairs of the local community are administered with efficiency and integrity. No community can ask for more than that, and no elected body can discharge a higher public duty than to ensure that those whom it represents get that. If it does that it is not necessary for its members to immerse themselves in the details of the day-to-day administration of the local services, or interfere with the executive functions of this or that officer, or spend hours, as has been known, wrangling about the remuneration of this or that employee, or in trying to wangle this or that protégé into a particular post. That is not the way to give the people good local government. On the contrary, the members of the local authorities should remain aloof from all this, and interfere as little as possible with their officers and employees. They should ask no favours from them and concede them none. They should say: there is one officer, the manager, whose job it is to give our people the best local service it is in his power to provide, and it is our job to see that he does it. The elected members of local authorities should formulate policy, they should think out solutions for local problems, they should discuss such problems with the manager, they should give him all the knowledge and information they have regarding them, and then they should rely on him to produce results. If, after due time, he fails in that they have their remedy. They can consider whether his failure is such as to warrant his removal from office. If in their view it is desirable, they can proceed under Section 6 of the County Management Act and suspend him with a view to his removal.
The two powers I have mentioned, the power to suspend the manager, should this be necessary, and the power to refuse supplies, alone would make the elected body the governing authority in the local government of the community. But elected bodies have other powers which are supplementary to these and which are designed to strengthen and reinforce the position of the elected representatives of the ratepayers as the controlling element in local government. For instance, an elected body can ask for a sworn inquiry into any aspect of the manager's administration, and, in my view, a request for such an inquiry, if made with any show of reason to support it, could not be refused. A demand vexatiously made for the purpose of intimidating a manager in the proper exercise of his functions would, of course, be quite another matter. Then, again, under Section 19 of the Act, the county manager must act by signed order and must keep a register of every order he makes. This register must not only be produced at every meeting of the elected body to which it refers, but any member of the body in question is entitled, on demand, to be furnished with a copy of any particular order which the manager has made. Moreover, whenever an elected body, or the chairman of such body, acting himself, requests him to do so the manager is bound under Section 27 of the Act to give all the information he may have in his possession regarding any matter or transaction appertaining to the business of the local authority.
The facilities, therefore, which members of a local authority have for informing themselves about all the actions of the manager are of the most comprehensive kind. They can know everything he does from meeting to meeting. They can either by majority vote or, as I have mentioned, at the request of the chairman, require the manager to give them all the information in his possession in relation to any matter, business or transaction relating to the local authority in which the manager has engaged, and, if necessary, as I have pointed out, they can request an investigation upon oath into any or all of these things. There is no doubt, therefore, that so far as supervision of the manager in the discharge of his functions is concerned, an elected body lacks neither the power nor authority to function effectively, though some members may sometimes be wanting in the wisdom and the will to recognise how real and substantial their powers are in this regard.
But the council's power under the County Management Act is not confined merely to supervision of the manager; it can direct him as well. Under Section 29 it can pass a resolution requiring the manager to do any particular act, matter or thing specifically mentioned in such resolution; and, on the passing of the resolution in due form, the manager, if the direction is one which he can lawfully execute, and if the money has been duly provided by the elected body for the purpose, must do as the resolution requires. It is true that there are certain matters in regard to which the manager is not subject to direction. These are the control, supervision and remuneration of the officers and employees of the local authority; the giving or withholding of public assistance to or from any particular individual; and the initiation, conduct, continuance or discontinuance of a prosecution against any particular person. It will be admitted, I think, by those who have experience, that such experience has sometimes shown that these reservations are essential if the purpose of the Act is to be attained. The purpose of the Act is to give our people a local administration which, while being subject to the general direction and supervision of the elected representatives of the ratepayers, will be efficient, honest and impartial.
Again, under Section 26 of the Act, an elected body may, at any time, by resolution require the manager to prepare and submit plans, specifications and estimates for the execution of any particular work specified in such resolution, provided that the work in question is one which it would be lawful for the body concerned to execute. Wide powers, furthermore, are reserved to an elected body as a planning authority under the Town and Regional Planning Acts, for the making and submission of planning schemes, and, as a housing authority, under the Housing Acts. Finally, if all this does not offer sufficient scope for the creative energies and critical faculties of any particular council, the Minister for Local Government may direct that certain functions and duties, not specifically reserved to it under the Second Schedule of the County Management Act, may be executed and performed directly by the council and not by the manager. I think it may be presumed that any request by an elected body to the Minister to make an Order of this kind would be very carefully and sympathetically considered by him. All this again goes to show that members of any local authority who confine themselves strictly to their own proper functions and exercise them in the spirit of the County Management Act render great civic service and carry public responsibilities of the highest order.
That is not, of course, to say that there are not adjustments to be made, to ensure a smoother and more effective working of the managerial system, but I am convinced that they are personal adjustments of temper and temperament rather than legislative. I know, of course, that while some elected members may be unreasonable and obstructive in their attitude towards managers, some managers, on the other hand, are too arbitrary in their approach to the councils. That, I can assure the House, is not a line which will receive any countenance or support from me. I shall stand behind the managers in the proper exercise of their statutory functions, but I will not condone, nor expect members of an elected body to tolerate any incivility, lack of respect or act of usurpation on the part of the manager. It is the duty of the manager to work harmoniously with his council, and while doing his duty, fearlessly, an efficient manager should be able to secure from all its members that assistance and co-operation which I am sure no public spirited citizen would refuse him.
That co-operation, I feel, however, will be the more readily forthcoming if county managers confine themselves strictly to their own job. In my view that job affords sufficient scope for all their abilities, and for its proper discharge would demand all the attention of even the most capable. I am saying this because I have noticed a tendency on the part of one or two individuals to seek the limelight in this or that organisation in a way which, to my mind, does not become a public servant, and which I have reason to believe does not meet with general acceptance. It is certainly not proper for a county manager to utilise staffs, buildings, or other resources of local authorities to do work, even social work, which is already being done or could be better done by existing organisations with special experience in it. In short, a wise county manager will realise that it is as good for him as for the cobbler to stick to his last. I know that practically every county manager sees the wisdom of this, and I hope, therefore, that the very few exceptions will not make it necessary for me or any other Minister for Local Government to have to point this out again. Otherwise the matter may have to be dealt with statutorily.
I have dwelt on this problem of the managerial principle as applied to local administration because of the concerted attempts which have been made to decry the practical value and advantages of the new system. There has been a great deal of clamour to get rid of it and to revert to the old position in which under the stress of modern conditions local administration was tending to break down altogether. I think there has been more sound than sense in that clamour, and the general public has been quite unmoved by it. If the issue were to be put to the electorate to-morrow, as to whether the managerial principle should be abandoned or be retained, I have no doubt there would be an overwhelming majority for its retention.
As well as the County Management Act other important legislative enactments for which the Minister for Local Government is responsible became operative during 1942. I refer to the Public Assistance Act, 1939, and the Local Government Act, 1941. In addition the regulations which, as Minister, I made under the first of these Acts also came into force. These regulations were the Public Assistance (General Regulations) Order, 1942, the Public Assistance (Medical Assistance in Dispensary Districts) Order, 1942, and the Public Assistance (Acquisition of Land) Regulations, 1942.
As a result of the new legislation the councils of the counties are now the public assistance authorities in every case, with the exceptions of Waterford City and County, where the public assistance authority is the Waterford Board of Public Assistance; Cork City and South Cork rural area, where the public assistance authority is the South Cork Board of Public Assistance; Limerick County Borough, where the public assistance authority is the Limerick Corporation; and Dublin City and County, where the public assistance authorities are the Dublin, Balrothery and Rathdown Boards of Assistance. In all cases the councils, except in respect of reserved functions, act through the county managers.
The Public Assistance Act, 1939— perhaps I should say for the benefit of Deputies who were not in the House when it was passed—amends and modernises the law relating to public assistance, and replaces the Poor Relief Acts 1838 to 1914, and the county schemes adopted in pursuance of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923. The Act provides that the administration of public assistance shall be subject to the general direction and control of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. Subject to such general direction, the administration of the Acts is now the responsibility of the county managers.
On 11th January, 1943, I made an Order relating to minor offices under the local authorities. The effect of the Order is that while Ministerial sanction is required to any permanent increase in the number of scheduled offices, appointments to existing offices may be dealt with by the manager without reference to the Minister, subject, however, to the observance of certain general conditions governing the maximum rate of remuneration, suitability of the appointee, etc. The appointment of substitutes for holders of existing offices who may be absent owing to illness, suspension or other cause, or while the office is vacant pending a permanent appointment, may be made similarly by the manager. Where a major office is concerned, the managers are no longer required to seek sanction for the employment as a substitute of any person who has been previously appointed with the Minister's unconditional approval as a substitute to such office or another office of the same class, whether under the same or another local authority, provided, of course, that the approval in question has not been modified or withdrawn, and provided further that the remuneration of the substitute does not exceed the rate last paid to any substitute in that particular office.
These changes represent a high degree of decentralisation of the local government administration. They should enable managers to deal expeditiously with minor vacancies on their staffs as they occur. In connection with them, it has been impressed upon the managers that they must carry full responsibility for seeing that persons previously employed with the Minister's express sanction continue to be fit persons to be employed, and they are further bound to satisfy themselves as to the health of persons permanently appointed to minor offices.
The actual expenditure of local authorities on the maintenance of roads for the year 1942-43 amounted to £1,343,854, of which £580,861 was in respect of main roads and £762,993 in respect of county roads. These figures show a substantial reduction on the figures for 1939-40 and 1940-41. In the latter year, the total expenditure was £1,615,493, of which £790,000 odd was spent on main roads and £825,000 odd on county roads. In the main, the reduction in expenditure was due to a shortage of materials. The employment given on road construction and road maintenance has always been an important item in the rural economy, and the natural reaction of the reduction in expenditure has been to reduce the employment usually afforded on these works by approximately 24 per cent., that is to say, from an average monthly figure of 16,112 men employed in the year 1940-41 to an average monthly figure of 12,315 men employed in 1942-43.
The rate collection for the financial year ended 31st March last amounted to 86.3 per cent. of the total warrant as compared with 78.4 per cent. for the previous financial year. I am glad to say that the improvement has been well maintained in the present year, and, if continued, should contribute to secure a general reduction in the demand which will have to be made upon the individual ratepayers. During the year there was a substantial expansion in the number of allotments provided for unemployed persons, the figure under this head being 21,594 as against 19,893 for the preceding year. In addition to the plots tilted by persons who are in receipt of unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance, or other form of public help. 4,322 plots were tilled by persons who were in a position to pay the full economic rent. If we take the produce of an average allotment as being worth approximately £12, food to the value of £300,000 was produced in 1942 under the local authorities' allotments schemes.
Schemes for the distribution of free milk to necessitous children under five years of age were continued in all areas, with the exception of one urban district, as were also schemes for the distribution of special allowances in kind to recipients of home assistance. School meals continue to be provided in the four county boroughs, 43 urban districts and 11 towns under town commissioners, and the average daily number of children in these areas who benefited thereby was 45,934. In addition, school meals were provided in 300 schools in the Gaeltacht, at which the average daily attendance was 15,220. The House will note that the provision in the Estimate for the current year for this service has been increased by £26,000. This, with the corresponding contribution from local authorities, is intended to supplement the former provision of milk and bread by the addition of an extra quantity of milk and butter and cheese.
I come now to the public health side of the Department, and as in the case of local government, I intend to refer only in a general way to the broader and larger problems with which we have to deal. I shall begin by quoting some statistics which present the whole situation in epitome, and, in my opinion, present it truly, neither colouring it with undue optimism nor darkening and distorting it with undue pessimism. The statistics to which I refer are the vital statistics for the year 1942, the figures for births, deaths and marriages, supplemented by the figures for maternal mortality, maternity mortality and infant mortality, over that period. These figures represent a summing up and final accounting for the year of the nation's gains and losses in the battle with death and disease.
A great deal of publicity has been given recently to highly-coloured statements relating to certain aspects of the public health. In consequence, I fear, the community has become seriously concerned at the implied deterioration in the general health and physical condition of the population. People have heard and read so much that is undoubtedly disquieting about the spread of this or that disease, since the war produced our present abnormal conditions, that there is some danger that there may be created a general psychological malaise which, we may be certain, will not diminish the exceptional difficulties which are now being encountered in maintaining the general health of the community. By all means we ought to do everything we possibly can to combat disease, but let us not, by being alarmist and sensasational about it, only increase the danger of it.
The figures which I am going to quote, the vital statistics for the Twenty-Six Counties, should do much to allay some of the undue apprehension which has been created. At the same time I should warn the House that the figures are not to be taken as a reason for complacency—indeed, there are certain aspects of the situation, to which I shall later refer, which leave no room for complacency whatsoever. But the vital statistics, at any rate, do present a balanced picture, and they should enable us to take a balanced view of our problems, and it is only when this is done that, bringing reason and judgment to bear, we can make any progress towards their solution. Let me come, however, to these important figures and what they reveal.
The number of marriages registered in 1942 was 17,470. This is an increase of 2,449 on the figure for 1941, and is higher by 2,922 than the average annual number for the decennial period 1931 to 1940. It represents, in fact, the greatest number of marriages registered in this country in any year since 1878, that is, the greatest number of marriages for the past 65 years. In 1878, moreover, the population was larger than it is to-day, so that, if a comparison is to be made, the proper basis for it is the marriage-rate then and in 1942. Then it was 4.59 per 1,000 of the population, but the rate for last year was no less than 28.5 per cent. higher than this, and at 5.9 per 1,000 was the highest ever recorded in this country.
It is a natural transition from a consideration of the marriage-rate to a consideration of the birth-rate. Here again we have a very gratifying result to record, for the number of births registered in 1942 was 9,337 greater than in 1941, and 9,043 higher than the average for the decennial period 1932-41. At 66,117 it was equivalent to a birth-rate of 22.31 per 1,000 of the estimated population. This is the highest rare recorded since 1914, when the birth-rate was 22.35. Our figure for the crude birth-rate may be compared with the 1942 figures of 22.8 for Northern Ireland, 15.8 for England and Wales, and with the 1938 figures of 19.7 for Germany, and 15.6, 20.6 and 14.6 for Belgium, the Netherlands and France, respectively.
I give these figures as a matter of interest only, and not because I attach undue importance to the crude birth-rate. The figure of ical significance, in fact, in this regard, is the net reproduction rate. This rate, as the House knows, expresses the prospect that the particular population for which it is calculated has of growing or declining, in so far as such prospect is conditioned by the birth-rate and the sex and age distribution upon which the calculation is based. When the net reproduction rate is 1 or unity, the population has been reproducing itself exactly. When it is less than unity the population has been failing to reproduce itself, and is likely to decline; on the other hand, when it is greater than unity, the population is likely to increase. Because the net reproduction rate is based upon past trends and upon values and habits as they prevailed during the period for which it was computed, it can only express the future trend of the population as a probability and not as a certainty. I want to make that point quite clear. It cannot make any allowance for changes in values or habits which may occur in the future, and therefore cannot take into account factors, other than fertility, mortality and sex-distribution, which may also influence the population trend considerably.
In 1937 the net reproduction rate was calculated at 0.782 for England and Wales, and 0.87 for France. For Germany in 1938 it was .945. For the Twenty-Six Counties, on the basis of births and deaths registered in the year 1942, it would be 1.39. It is possible that this figure is not very accurate because it is based on the number of births registered, and registrations in 1942 may have been in excess of the number of births which actually occurred during that year. For instance, the necessity for obtaining ration books may have led to prompter registration of the newborn. I think, however, the rate may be accurate enough to justify us in saying that during 1942 natural causes were operating in this country to produce an increase of over 30 per cent. in our population in about 30 or 40 years from now.
We may turn now to the other side of the account, the mortality record for 1942. The position here was not quite as satisfactory as in the case of marriages and births. Indeed, in the case of certain diseases the mortality was such as to cause us all serious concern. But on the whole, so far as the total number of registered deaths is concerned, 1942 compares favourably with most of the preceding years. The actual figure at 41,640 was 2,157 below the figure for 1941 and was the third lowest ever recorded in this country. The death rate, which was equivalent to 14.05 per 1,000 of the estimated population, was not only the lowest experienced since 1938, when the rate was the second lowest in our history, but was the fifth lowest recorded, whether in war or peace, since 1864. The number of deaths amongst children under one year of age was 4,591, the rate being 69 per 1,000 births, as compared with 74 per 1,000 for 1941. For Scotland the corresponding rate was 69 per 1,000 births and for Northern Ireland, 76. The rate of maternal mortality fell to 2.47 per 1,000 births, as against 3.2 in 1941, and was the lowest on record. A similar position was recorded in respect of general maternity mortality, that is, total deaths caused by or associated with pregnancy or childbirth. During 1942, these totalled 189, or 2.86 per 1,000 births, which was again the lowest on record. If we were to take the general death-rate—and I know no reason why we should not—as a comprehensive index of the health experience of the community, it could be argued that in this respect the year 1942, taken all in all, was among the best in our recent history. Certainly it was far better than anyone in September 1939 would have believed could be the case in the third year of a World War.
The vital statistics which I have given represent in broad view the vitality of our community. They show that last year our marriage-rate was the highest ever recorded; that our birth-rate was the highest recorded since 1914—almost a generation ago; that the death-rate was among the lowest in our history; and that the fertility of our people is such that, even with a death-rate equal to that recorded for last year, the present tendency is for our population to increase substantially. We need not qualify in any way this presentation of the first two of these statistical facts, but in regard to the third there is an aspect of the situation which is highly disturbing. I refer to the increased mortality which was recorded last year from certain diseases, to wit, cancer, tuberculosis, diarrhoea and enteritis, diphtheria and whooping cough. After tuberculosis, cancer was the most fatal of these diseases. Mortality from it showed a slight upward trend in the years 1940 and 1941. In those years 3,773 and 3,790 deaths respectively were recorded as due to it as against 3,738 for the year 1939. Last year, however, there was a steep rise in the mortality and the number, of deaths ascribed to the disease jumped to 4,055.
In the case of tuberculosis the number of deaths, though fluctuating from year to year, has had an upward tendency since 1939. From all forms of the disease the mortality recorded last year was 4,347, a figure which is to be compared with 3,711 for 1941, 3,685 for 1940 and 3,304 for 1939. Non-pulmonary tuberculosis was accountable for 835 deaths in 1942 as against 829 in 1941 and 778 and 687 in 1940 and 1939, respectively. It will be noted that these figures show a sharp upward trend. This tendency unfortunately was even more marked in the case of pulmonary tuberculosis, for here the number of deaths last year was 3,512 as against 2,882, 2,907 and 2,617 for 1941, 1940 and 1939, respectively. On the other hand —in view of the apparent sequential relation between the incidence of influenza and the mortality from tuberculosis—I ought to point out in passing that there was a very sharp decrease last year in the number of deaths from influenza as compared with previous years: the figures being 388 for 1942, as against 1,335 for 1941, 828 for 1940 and 1,091 for 1939. In 1942 the figure for influenza in fact was not only 947 less than for the preceding year, but was the lowest registered since 1889.
Numbering 1,000, deaths from diarrhoea and enteritis in persons under two years of age were 125 more than in 1941, 402 more than in 1940, and 42R more than in 1939. The increase in the mortality under this head has been particularly marked since 1940, for in 1941 the number of deaths in this category was 275 more than in the previous year when the number was 578. Yet a slight upward, trend in mortality had been experienced for some years before that, from 1934 in fact. In March, 1942, the Parliamentary Secretary, Dr. Ward, summoned a conference of medical experts to consider the problem, and as a result an investigation to ascertain the reasons for the increased death-rate was initiated under the auspices of the Medical Research Council. The report of that investigation has now come to hand and is being studied. As I mentioned last year, the disease was made compulsorily notifiable early in 1942. The records which have been obtained since then show that in the main its incidence has been confined to Dublin City, in which during the last three-quarters of 1942, 2,656 cases were notified, as against 22 in Dun Laoghaire Borough, and 67 in Dublin County health district.