At the outset of my observations, I should like to make perfectly clear one point with regard to the attitude of the Minister in connection with this resolution. First of all, we regard the County Management Act as one of a series of historic changes in local government administration that have been taking place for the last 20 years. We do not regard the Act as a violent change, but part of a slow evolutionary process which has been taking place ever since we attained independence for the Twenty-Six Counties. Secondly, I should like to make it clear at the very outset that we regard the Act as an experiment which is worthy of a very fair and pretty extensive trial, and that we welcome any useful, constructive criticism as to the operation of the Act and as to the way in which it is being administered in different areas. We welcome any helpful suggestions with regard to the division of powers as between the manager and the local authority which we can examine in the light of the general position of the whole local government of the country.
We are not in the position that we believe that the County Management Act must stay, without any sort of amendment. We agree very largely with the Deputy-Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy O'Higgins, who said that the Act had not been given a sufficient trial; that a certain period must pass before we take a final view with regard to whether it should be continued or whether it should be amended. In that connection, I should like to point out that in the Act itself there is a clause which provides for the transfer of powers, by permission of the Minister, from the county manager to a council, with one important reservation, namely, that the power of the manager to supervise the staff is one which is definitely reserved for him. I think I am speaking on behalf of the great majority of local government electors in saying that it would only be for very extraordinary reasons that we would amend the section of the Act which gives to the manager the control and supervision of the officers. I might add that under previous Local Government Acts the Minister himself had a very large measure of control, control which has been growing for the last 20 years, and that we would, therefore, be more than reluctant to make any amendment or alteration in that particular respect. When we hear violent criticism of the Act we are bound to assume that, in certain cases, it is because of the quite natural and human disappointment on the part of local government representatives that they have lost a certain degree of patronage, which they may have exercised quite sincerely—I make no allegation of corruption—but which did not redound to the efficiency of the local bodies concerned.
The resolution is vague in a number of respects. It does not definitely state whether the executive functions which it seeks to restore to the council include the supervision and control of officers. It does not specify any particular functions. It is, generally speaking, a vague statement to the effect that the administrators are dissatisfied with the present position, and there is a suggestion that we have departed from democratic principles. We claim that the County Management Act has worked properly, and that, given a fair trial, democratic procedure can continue under the aegis of the present Act. The resolution recommends that we restore to the elected representatives of the people effective authority to direct the administration of local government affairs. We ask what that word "direct" means? Does it mean control or supervision? Does it mean the appointment and control of officers, or does it mean some slight change in the degree to which any particular local authority controls from day to day the acts of the manager in so far as the spending of the rate and the spending of a local government grant are concerned?
We now come to the question of the statement in the resolution: "A distinct departure from democratic principles". I feel compelled to remind the House very briefly of the development of local government in this country. I will be as brief as I can, but it is essential that we look at this Act in its historic context and realise that it is not a violent change in itself, but a change taking place ever since this country achieved independence. I would remind the House that local government started in this country in 1897. There is no special sanctity in the form of local government in this country; it has not got the long tradition that democratic government has all over Europe. It began here in 1897, and it is of no use to assume that the norm of democratic operation here is what existed in any particular period —in 1925, in 1930, or in 1935. It is no use to assume that there is a norm of any aspect of local government very far from the present system. We ought to keep our minds upon that, and I suggest that, if we do, we could debate this resolution in a far more useful way than we could by assuming that everything which has happened since has been a departure from normality.
I would remind the House of the 1923 Act, which made provision by which local boards of guardians were dissolved or eclipsed. The Minister was given power to dissolve bodies, and dissolved 20 immediately. He was also given certain powers of control over the appointment of officers, and from then commenced the ever-increasing control over the terms of appointment of officers, their control, etc. That began long before 1940. Then came the Local Appointments Commission, which took over the power to control the appointment of major officers. The Act of 1925 followed, which unified the authorities for health and assistance and abolished rural district councils. Then the Greater Dublin Commission came into being, including in its membership Deputies Corish, Byrne, and Senator Professor Magennis. They recommended the managerial system. Deputy Corish wrote a Minority Report in that connection, but I do not want to keep the House by reading through it. Their recommendations were at least in general principle very substantially the recommendations that lay behind the County Management Act of 1940; in other words, the absolutely clear separation of executive from legislative functions. The differences between the recommendations of that inquiry in 1924 and the present County Management Act are at the very most a matter of detail rather than of general principle.
It so happened that Cork Corporation was the first body to commence the managerial system. In 1930 we had Dublin. In 1939, the Cork Managerial Act was amended to conform with what had been done by the other bodies and, so far as I can ascertain, there was no definite or general criticism on the part of Cork Corporation at that time. When the Act came for re-consideration there may have been some criticism but I cannot find it recorded in the Department that, in the light of what had happened in Dublin, the Cork people did not desire to change the system to keep level with Dublin. On the contrary, it went through with great smoothness. In connection with Cork, Dublin, and later Limerick, the Minister never received any considered resolution by any of those bodies for the transfer of functions from the managers back to the councils. There has never been any serious resolution to that effect. There may have been minor complaints and minor resolutions, but there was never any considered resolution of that kind.
In 1927 a commission recommended the consolidation of the public assistance law and that managers be appointed. Since then, there have been huge increases in the amount of rate collected and big increases in the Government contribution, and it was felt by a great many people that, in order to have impartiality of local government, efficiency and financial stability, executive functions must be delegated from local authorities to independent officers. Putting that in a different way, what has happened in the last 20 years? When this State became independent, there were very numerous authorities in very small areas, with very little specialisation of function, whose members had intimate knowledge of local problems, with little assistance or State control. From that, we have developed gradually to a larger area of authority, fewer authorities, authorities being coalesced, and specialised treatment of almost every subject in local government. Very large executive responsibility has been thrown on to the local authorities. The development of a national health service needed a degree of national control and the need for the co-ordination of all the executive functions in connection with health service became more apparent. In that connection, I may add that for ordinary human reasons the local authorities were almost always behind the State in the insistence of new health standards.
With that came large grants and control. Eventually the position was reached when a local authority had so many responsibilities that, if it were to be efficient, the agenda for such a body would have to consist principally of discussions on policy, of what had been done in a certain period and what should be done in another period. It became quite impossible for a local authority to carry out a full agenda, in which it had all the managerial control and in which it instructed local secretaries or local officers to carry out what was deemed to be right for the area. All of us who have studied local government know that that was taking place and that the result was that they could not administer efficiently every function. Many of these executive functions were under the direct control of county councils or urban councils, and while I need not go into the matter there were many cases of incompetence revealed. A very large number of local authorities were dissolved by the Central Government on the ground of incompetence. In connection with the appointments of local officers there was a considerable degree of influence of a purely human type. We need not go into the question of whether or not there was corruption; but it was quite evident from the reports in the Local Government Department—as I think everyone will agree—that the qualifications of officers in local authorities were not regarded with sufficient care by the county council, simply because it is impossible for a large body to deal with a matter like that and appoint the best people with all the political influences that are quite evident.
In addition to that, 30 separate new functions have been given to local authorities since 1933, including the functions arising out of the emergency. These are entirely new functions, involving the expenditure of millions of pounds, both contributed locally and by the Central Government. The inevitable and logical consequence of this was the County Management Act, 1940, with the transfer of executive functions and transfer of the control and supervision of the officers to a paid manager. With that went a very important Act, which must be considered at the same time—the Local Government Act, 1941—under which the Minister was given powers to standardise to a reasonable degree the terms of appointment of local officers, their remuneration, their terms of office, their holidays, their relations with the county manager and so forth. At some time a little later on, the Public Bodies Order, 1942, was signed by the Minister. It provided for a complete reorganisation of all the very highly involved and technical work of carrying out local government administration. With that went the Public Assistance Act, which consolidated all public assistance law. And now the latest thing we have is a further development of local government functions—the announcement by the Minister that some time in the next few months there will be a scheme for granting pensions to local government officials.
All that is part of the evolutionary development of local government, and I will again ask the House to consider it in that light, and when making criticisms to be helpful. Deputies might realise that we regard this Act in an experimental light and we want to achieve the very best form of local government while continuing the democratic principles involved in the election of county councils and urban councils.
I would like just for a few minutes to advert to a comparison between the development of local government and the development of central government. In 1900 democratic government was largely the work of a policeman. It developed from that to a pure control of taxation. Then it reached the present position, when we absorb between 25 and 30 per cent. of the national income in taxation, including high rates and a big contribution to local rates. A very great growth of the central government in its legislative functions, namely that of directing economic policy, has also taken place. To show you that the Central Government at all times has carefully kept distinct its executive function, I should like to compare the development of local government with the kind of authorities which, under central government, now administer the Acts passed in this Dáil. First of all, there is the Civil Service Commission which chooses the Civil Service staff independently of this House. There is the Local Appointments Commission. There is a whole series of statutory bodies which are subject to the general criticism of the House but which entirely remove from this House any executive function in connection with the work—bodies such as the Irish Land Commission, the Revenue Commissioners, the tribunal that administers the Trade Union Act, the tribunal that at present deals with Emergency Powers Orders. There is the development of a huge number of statutory Orders all of which appear in the Order Paper here, but very few of which are ever challenged by members of the House and which bear a certain comparison with the orders passed by county managers. I say a certain comparison. I am simply saying they are parallel developments resulting from the huge increase in the complexity of government, both locally and centrally. There are statutory corporations such as the Electricity Supply Board, the Industrial Credit Corporation, Irish Shipping Limited, and so on.
The development of these executive bodies brings with it problems that I need not go into but which affect central government as much as local government on which, at all times, discussion is desirable in the House. Unless the House Leeps very careful watch over all these executive functions, the people lose control of their own government. We hear discussion of them during Estimates; we hear debates on what should be done; but everybody knows that as government gets more complex there must be a removal from the legislative body, a separation from what may be described as political activity, of the executive functions of the State, money for which is provided by the Oireachtas.
To make another rather far-fetched comparison, it was becoming as impossible for local authorities to administer every Act as it would be if this Dáil sat down to award reconstruction grants under the Local Government Acts. A list of these reconstruction grants would be placed before us. We would have to debate whether so-and-so was entitled to a grant or not. I grant that there is only a remote comparison there but the comparison inevitably exists to a great degree.
I want to deal shortly with the general powers which local authorities have under the County Management Act. We have heard a good deal of criticism already from Deputies—very wild criticism and very moderate criticism. I was very interested in Lord Mayor O'Sullivan's speech. I wish he had been a little more definite in his statement. He made a very careful and balanced observation. Deputy Donnellan was a little bit uncertain. He felt the Act required amendment but did not go so far as to suggest that the Act should be scrapped. Deputy Flanagan made a number of very wild assertions.
I want to remind members of the Dáil of the powers of the local authority, which they possess under the County Management Act, 1940. In that connection I would draw the attention of the House to a letter issued by the Department of Local Government to county managers on the 27th January of this year in which we very clearly, and so far as we could, indicated the degree to which it was desirable that county managers should co-operate with county councils and with local authorities. We pin-pointed in this letter a certain number of matters in which we thought a very definite and minimum degree of co-operation was essential.
The most important work of the local authority is in the estimate of expenses and the striking of the rate for each year, and the degree to which that becomes a matter of discussion is very much in the hands of the local authority. There is no reason why they should not have discussion on the past work of the year in respect of each of the heads of local government; there is no reason why estimates should not be presented to them in a form which they can understand. They can ask for explanations—why a rate is being increased for some particular service or why a rate is being decreased. They can make general observations. The whole question of what happens before the rate is struck is, I submit, a matter of general development in which we hope that local authorities will co-operate with the county manager and from which something useful and reasonable will emerge, something that does not obstruct the work of the county manager but which gives useful activity to the local authority, to the councillors of these authorities, at the time of year when they are debating this matter. That is one thing about which we are most insistent.
There is another matter I would refer to by reading a paragraph in this letter:—
"Every manager should as a matter of course keep the local authority informed of the important details of his administration, including particulars of projects in contemplation."
Then, in connection with the examination of orders which have been made by the manager, we make the observation:—
"In some cases summaries have been issued or printed copies have been circulated to members while in others the local Press is periodically supplied with those copies of the more important orders. The local authority should decide whether the production at meetings of the register containing the manager's orders is sufficient or that other information is desired. The manager should endeavour to meet their wishes as far as practicable and not confine himself to the minimum the law requires if the council wishes him to go beyond-that."
We welcome any observations on how far county managers have observed the spirit and the letter of that recommendation made to them. It is impossible for me to read the whole of this document, but I should like to read what really summarises its whole character:
"The representatives of the electorate are the controlling element in local affairs. It is for them to formulate policy and in association with the manager, to consider the solutions for local problems. A loyal acceptance by the manager of the predominant position of the elected body will add much to elicit from them the support to which he is entitled in the discharge of his duties."
That, again, we hope, will result in the best possible form of co-operation between the manager and the local authority. I should say in this connection that discussion necessarily varies in different districts. It is quite obvious to us that in certain areas the county manager has achieved a degree of co-operation with the local authority which the county manager has not achieved in others, and we are watching that position very carefully. We hope that what is being done in counties where there has been very evident satisfaction with the managerial system will gradually take place in other counties where the position is less satisfactory.
I want also to advert to another very important power which local authorities have, and which is not apparent at the present time because of the emergency, that is, in the development of new housing. Under existing statutes the medical officer of health must condemn houses unfit for habitation, but the rate of building of new houses, the adoption of resolutions for clearance areas, the ratifying of loans for housing give an opportunity to members of local authorities to exercise a very great influence both in the type of houses provided, in the amenities of these houses, in their location and in general housing policy, subject always, as was the case long before the County Management Act came into existence, to control by the central authority. Housing will be a big problem after the war, and although shortage of raw materials will effect an additional measure of control by the central authority, which would not be necessary in the ordinary way, that is a power which the local authority have and which we hope they will take advantage of.
Another power they have is in passing town planning resolutions. Very little advantage is being taken of the Town Planning Act. A very great deal can be done to avoid unsightly buildings, to build beautiful towns, to see that we have the best possible form of town and urban area. In that connection the local authority has the power to pass a resolution and to adopt, to amend and to alter any scheme provided by an architect. Once a scheme has been adopted the execution of it is a matter for the county manager.
Then there is a further power that local authorities possess. If they are willing to raise the money or raise the rates for the purpose, they possess the power, with certain reservations that I need not go into in detail now, to requisition the manager to carry out certain things. For instance, they can requisition him to build a bridge in an area, provided they have the money. If they want a contribution from the central authority, then it is a matter of procedure between the Central Government and the local authority, the procedure for which is well known to Deputies. That power of requisitioning the manager to do certain things also applies, with certain reservations, but not such as would detract from the value of this clause, to sewerage and water supply schemes, if the council should choose to invoke the power. Again, in connection with health, the mental hospitals joint committees have very considerable powers both in regard to the dietary and the conduct of the officials, and they are doing very useful work in ensuring that the work of these hospitals is being carried out efficiently.
Adverting again to the suggestion of the Deputy-Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy O'Higgins, that it is too soon to make any changes in the County Management Act, I would remind the House that the Act only came into operation in September, 1942, and a certain number of officers have been transferred. There has been a certain amount of shifting of officers, and I think it would be true to say that the Act is only in its teething stages. It has hardly one calendar year of actual working in which we could observe results.
I do not think that that is an exaggeration, and therefore I think that we ought to take very seriously the suggestion of Deputy O'Higgins, that we should consider the matter very carefully before deciding to make any material changes. Again, I think that the Government would be most reluctant to go back to the old system of control of officers. The principal reason for the adoption of the Act of 1942 was to bring about efficiency, and, when I say that, I do not mean cold-blooded, mechanical, relentless efficiency. We have a very high rate of taxation, and the higher the rate of local and central taxation, the more must we, in the interests of national economy, insist on a reasonable measure of efficiency, on having a good job done well, and on the avoidance of waste, while at the same time we wish to have the business of the local councils administered humanely. Nobody on this side of the House— and, certainly not the Minister—would like to see the sort of cold-blooded, relentless efficiency which does not take account of the human element, but I can assure the House that, taking one particular section of local government activity, the examination of audits, there is still room for a very great improvement in the efficiency of local bodies. They have such large responsibilities that we must expect from them in the coming years the same minimum measure of efficiency that we would expect in the Central Government, and, as I have said, there is still a great deal of lee-way to be made up in that respect. It is our hope to bring about that efficiency, and now that the qualifications of the officers concerned are being prescribed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, and carefully supervised by the managers, we hope to have far greater efficiency in the future than we have had in the past so far as these bodies are concerned.
Taking again the question of how far the County Management Act has created dissatisfaction, I think that, without any exaggeration, it is fair to say that we have not had any large measure of criticism from the electors. Certainly, nothing has been recorded in the Department suggesting that the electors as a whole are dissatisfied with the County Management Act. There is nothing which would suggest that they do not wish to have a continuance of the Act for a further period. So far as the local authorities are concerned, we have heard criticisms to-day from representatives of certain local authorities, but after a very brief examination of such newspaper reports as I could find of local authority meetings, I find that there, again, a number of local authorities are highly satisfied, so far as the County Management Act is concerned, with what has taken place. Many of these newspapers are not known for their Fianna Fáil proclivities. I am not going to read all the extracts, but I can assure the House that a very considerable number of these local authorities, when welcoming a manager, or when saying good-bye to a manager when he was leaving, were unanimous in their praise of his work. In some cases there was unmeasured criticism, and in other cases measured criticism of the County Managerial Act, such as we had from Deputy Roddy, and which I think deserves serious consideration, but on the whole these local authorities were unanimous in their praise of the work of the managers concerned. There were suggestions, of course, that the managerial system might be modified, or even scrapped altogether, but from the general tone of these reports one would deduce that a very considerable number of local authorities are satisfied with the County Management Act. On the whole, therefore, I think that we might give the Act another trial before making any change.
I could read these extracts for the House, but I do not think it is necessary to do so, and I hope that Deputies will take my word for it that there is nothing to cause the Minister to despair, or to be seriously worried or perturbed. That is what I deduce from reading a considerable number of extracts from local newspapers in regard to the Managerial Act. There is nothing to suggest that we need make any drastic changes. There are no definite reasons put forward to suggest any drastic changes, nor is there a very large measure of criticism either of the Act or its administration. I might also add that we have had no criticism to any measurable extent in connection with those authorities where the managerial system has been in operation for a considerable period.
Now, to deal with another criticism that has been made. It has been suggested that there is nothing now for these local bodies to do. Although the Act has not been in operation for a long time, and although the creation of precedents and a tradition of discussion between the manager and the local authority has not had time to be seen in its full light, an examination of reports from local newspapers indicates that a very large number of local bodies have had very considerable and prolonged discussions. From reading a number of extracts from papers from different areas, I should say that very happy relations exist between the local bodies and the managers and that they by no means have had nothing to do. Again, that is a matter for co-operation between the manager and the local authorities.
Again, the local electoral returns for the last election in 1942, while lower than the votes in the previous local elections of 1934, reveal that the people, who were aware of the County Managerial Act, took a very considerable interest, and the percentage of the people who polled varied from 47 to 65 per cent. which, I think, compares very favourably with the figures for the last two general elections.
I would conclude, therefore, by asking the House to let us have constructive criticism, to distinguish between any suggestion they may have to make with regard to removing from the county manager his powers of controlling officers, and the transfer of other executive functions, and to be perfectly distinct, as far as they can, in their observations, because unless we have clarity it will be impossible for us to benefit by discussing this resolution.
I move to report progress.
